Apparently thorium is an option for nuclear energy instead of uranium; this might be a beneficial option not only for the United States but also politically worrisome governments (like Iran) since it cannot be used for weapons and the radioactivity of the waste products dies out much sooner.
Using conventional nuclear energy, though, certainly poses a number of safety hazards. My biggest concern about the present system is not the way in which it is produced (many nuclear facilities are designed so that the process is extremely safe); the problem is that we do not have a good way to get rid of the waste. We need to resolve the waste problem before we start discussing whether to build any more conventional nuclear power plants.
Although I am in favor of alternative energy, it needs to be cost-effective; we should not spend resources on alternative energy projects unless they are actually viable. The electric cars offered by Tesla Motors seem to be promising. Hydroelectric and wind power usually pay for themselves. Solar power is not ideal in all situations, but in some places it is cost-effective.
From what I understand, using hydrogen to power cars would be cost-prohibitive compared to electric options. There are several other proposals that have been made (such as solar generation facilities in outer space or tethered wind turbines that fly in the jet stream), but, based on what I have seen, they seem to not be cost-effective.
Although I would support the use of alternative energy sources as state representative (as any good representative should), I do not want to support projects which cannot pay for themselves.