Nowadays our dependence on Fossil Fuels is becoming quite a predicament, so do you believe the USA should turn to nuclear power, the pollution free source?

There are Pro's and Con's

Pro's:

It doesn't produce smoke or smog.
It does create a significant amount of energy.
There have only been 2 major accidents:
Chernobyl (sp?)-Deaths
100 Mile Island (Not sure if it is 100 but you get the idea)-No deaths

Con's:

Nuclear Waste
Danger Factor
If explosion occurs, the long lasting effects.
Dependence on Uranium

I don't think so, the cons outweigh the pro's. That being said I don't know much about this topic so I shall leave it at that.

In the short term it is excellent, and in the long term it is a problem.

I say no, invest in alternatives like solar, which have no environmental downsides.

I understand what you are saying, however the only major con that I see is the dependence on Uranium. Nuclear waste can always be sent into space, even though it would cost a hefty sum, and the danger factor isn't really a factor. The Chernobyl accident was Russian, and this is a debate about America, and the American explosion didn't kill anyone. There was an oil refinery that exploded that killed around 15 people and injured over 100, but we use oil today.

EDIT:

At Bonk:

Yes, we could invest in Solar, however our technology isn't enough to power America. We do need a solution that can help us NOW so we can be better in the future. There is only one environment downside of nuclear power, and that is the waste, and if we do start using nuclear power much more, we will discover a way to dispose if it.

Solar panels at the moment are only about 12% efficient, until technology improves, it isn't a worthy investment...

Well, actually, without an investment, how will they improve?

You are contradicting yourself. But I see your point. They aren't up to standard to be the main source of power for one of the largest nations in the world.

We need something that doesn't cause all these gases for a short period of time so we are able to invest and develop better alternatives while still providing energy to the people in the USA.

People are working on it, and they've reached 40% efficiency, but it is very, very expensive then

Solar energy once it is more cost effective.

i think we should find an alternative fuel and only use nuclear power if we are really desperate

Alternatives would be much better. Wind, solar, etc.

Yes, wind, solar, etc are all better, however if we need to fuel a whole country, we can't with those. The question is should we continue with oil or with nuclear power?

If we build on a big enough scale, why can't we power our country with those?

Nanowire Grass is the way to go as a replacement for current solar power.

Basically, nanowire grass is a form of solar panel made up of thousands of tiny wires that grow like grass and are so incredibly tiny (Thousands of times thinner than a human hair) that if you run your hand over their bare surface, it would feel smooth.

The best part of these is that we'll be able to, in the future, cover entire surfaces with these. Imagine covering your entire car with a solar panel without sacrificing cost, aerodynamics, or even your paint job. That's what they're aiming for with this stuff.

The aim is to produce flexible, affordable solar cells composed of Group III-V nanowires that, within five years, will achieve a conversion efficiency of 20 percent. Longer term, he says, it's theoretically possible to achieve 40 percent efficiency, given the superior ability of such materials to absorb energy from sunlight and the light-trapping nature of nanowire structures. By comparison, current thin-film technologies offer efficiencies of between 6 and 9 percent.

Nuclear power is fine as a temporary source of power, and frankly it doesn't have all the ill effects that everyone worries about (The nuclear waste can be put elsewhere [Jupiter anyone?] and Chernobyl was a shitty facility with barely any safety precautions, and it was handled badly) and only emits steam.