The crisis in Japan has raised new doubts about nuclear power. At the same time, it seems our current alternative forms of energy, beyond traditional fossil fuels, very likely couldn't come close to meeting our present energy needs. (Let's assume, at least for the sake of debate, that switchgrass and wind farms won't cut the mustard.)
Absent any truly viable alternatives, would you prefer a renewed emphasis on fossil fuels, more emphasis on safety while continuing to expand nuclear power, or a mix of the two? Or perhaps a radical reduction in energy use, likely punctuated by quotas for homes and businesses? Has your position changed in light of recent events? Discuss.