you mention that most presidential candidates seem open but haven't really embraced nuclear energy despite large support for it from environmentalists, scientists and others (the support is deserved - only small amounts of waste materials are generated, it's reliable and isn’t affected by weather conditions, fuel costs are low and large quantities of power are generated, it doesn't produce carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide or nitrogen oxides, and so on). but it will be a while i think before most politicians come out in favor of nuclear energy - at least until we get a new name for it. people hear nuclear and they think north korea and iran. this predisposes them to the arguments against nuclear energy: nuclear waste is dangerous and remains so for thousands of years; there are no plans for safe disposal of the waste for thousands of years; an accident could be disastrous; high costs during the build phase; high maintenance costs; decommissioning is very expensive; and nuclear power stations could be potential terrorist targets.