The probability of error is very small while also producing a lot of energy. While there are solar and wind options yes; but they don't produce nearly the same nuclear energy as a nuclear power plant would. Not to mention with how well the US is defended there is a small chance of a terrorist attack happening to a power plant.
Fsdj f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f ff f f ff f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f ff f f f f f f f
Nuclear power is a very safe method of producing energy that has a fairly low failure rate. However, there are other sources of energy that are safer. Water, solar, and wind energy have even lower rates of failure resulting in safety hazards. Nuclear power is still safer and better for the environment than some traditional methods, but it isn't the safest.
I think that solar power, not nuclear power, is the absolute safest way to produce energy. Solar power is simply harnessing natural energy from the sun, and I really don't see how there could be any safer way to produce energy. The only problem with solar energy though is that terrorists could simply attack the solar panels and then we lose the capability to harness the energy and we would start back at square one again.
No, nuclear power is not the safest way to produce energy. Nuclear power creates thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste every year. In addition, nuclear plants can be unstable. In cases of nuclear reactor plant accidents, area residents and people in the downwind of the radiation were more likely to be diagnosed with forms of cancer or leukemia.
There is a list of energy producers that are safer than nuclear power. Nuclear powered plants can be a danger to the country-side from the water-waste from cooling systems, as opposed to solar energy which doesn't need coolant at all. Even the waterwheel is a safer way to produce energy than nuclear power.