I'd call wind power and solar power pretty darn safe. The cost is not prohibitive despite rumors to the contrary, considering what the country is pouring into its nuclear program. And yes, there is plenty of potential for collection of energy through those sources without supplementation from nuclear power, despite what nuclear energy industry proponents would like everyone to think. The fact is, safer sources of energy simply aren't as lucrative (and they don't provide us with weapon materials), and that's why they aren't in the forefront at this time.
What is erroneous about my statement?
The fact that the concrete shielding in our (most of them dilapidated) nuclear plants isn't enough to contain the radiation they generate? No, I'm pretty sure that has been confirmed. It might be enough to contain some or most of the radiation, but no shielding can yet block all the radiation being generated.
The fact that nuclear plants use their energy to heat water? Again, no, that's all that it does.
Furthermore, a large number of plants which (operating long past their planned lifespan) have failed or haven't even been checked to comply with the industry's "safety" guidelines but the commission keeps renewing the plant contracts anyway, because they just make so much darn money that they don't even care.
And even if we could contain the radiation from the plants, that still leaves the problem of where to contain the waste. We have companies blasting holes in mountains where people live, or selling it to other countries. In Europe they're dumping it in the Mediterranean. France's groundwater is contaminated forever due to their nuclear program. And I don't think it's a very great idea to keep generating material for atomic bombs, you know? The idea is that no one is ever going to use them, so why does every country need a stockpile of them?
I'll certainly admit that I may be biased against the use of nuclear power, but you are most certainly biased toward it. I know we'd all love to believe that nothing's wrong as long as someone tells us it's fine, but the idea that a little poison is fine for you really needs to be dispelled. I find your attitude distasteful. It's so easy to dismiss nuts with a wave of your hand, but this is not sensationalism. There is more to the situation than the NRC would like to have widely known. Do some research into the other side of the argument just for your own edification.
I'm sure you'll refute this as all unsubstantiated nonsense, but that's okay. You can keep doing your paper engineering without checking on actual situations as long as you want. Someone with a little more sense and a little less greed than the NRC will surely come along before we have more accidents, right?
...
