what about an experienced, educated university professor with vast knowledge on the field?

So do you strive to know the ins and outs of the matter? looking at it from a point further from politics? Having deep insight and knowledge so you can say "I know better"?

I respect your stand on this. But I had assumed that this section of the forum is reserved for more... shall we say... academical discussions. More towards the science of the issue rather than the politics, which I assume would be in the Real-Life Issues sub-forum.

Not wanting to get drifted, what other alternatives we have? Solar, hidro, wind and all this ala green peace power generators still havent come close to the energy that nuclear can produce. not yet anyway. and not without sacrificing tons of land and forest.

You have me at a disadvantage when it comes in politics. so I'll try to stick to what I know.

Finite as it is, it will not deplete for a very long time. with advances in reactor technology such as breeder reactors, the deadline can be extended quite significantly.

Unfortunately, it is still finite. Hopefully, by the time we actually deplete sources, fusion technology would become reality. Either that or hope that man has made significant leaps in technology of renewable sources.

as of 2006, there are 441 nuclear powerplants with US(103), France(59), and Japan (55) the top 3 followed by Korea, Russia, India, other European countries, etc..

Malaysia does have a nulear reactor but for research purposes only.

And true, we do not have power shortages right now. But the whole reason why they were considering Nuclear is because our nations oil supply is running low.

Trivia: We nearly had a Nuclear powerplant built in the 70s. The site and every other logistics were pretty much settled (planning wise). Then we struck oil