I don't think you're being creative enough. Gas has an infrastructure that's been established for over fifty years. What's the difference in filling up a tank of gas and going to a "gas" station and swapping batteries? And pneumatics, being gas, can fill far faster than liquids due to their much lower viscosity.

Hydrogen is a automatic biproduct of modern nuclear reactors that can be made extensively during low power consumption periods that occur every night. Hydrogen can be burned in a common engine exactly like gasoline. Hydrogen can also be put into fuel cells. Either way, it has zero carbon emissions because it contains no carbon. NOx emissions suck however, due to the very high temperature of stoichiometric combustion.

Farming the gulf/jet streams is probably the most risky and least environmentally friendly method available. Almost every climate on the planet is dependent on them and with melting Ice - I think Greenland is of particular interest - we're weakening it as it is. If we alter it enough to change it's path, billions will die.

There are some cancer studies that need serious examination but I think nuclear is usually singled out for pollution because it's in one single place. Also, people like to believe their own driving is harmless. I'm glad we're investing in nuclear and hope we can do it it a clean and safe manner.

Oh, thank you, I didn't know before!

Well, what about Uranium supply? It isn't infinite either, is it?
What if someone insane crashes a plane into a nuclear power plant?

And still:
Who will guard the radioactive waste for 2000+ years?

Pollutant, huh? Guess I'd better go around with a bag of lime attached to my head so I don't get fined.

Pfft. The only fallout you guys got was in the extreme east of Germany, and that wasn't even that bad.

In the absolute worst case scenario, there's only the containment building between the plane and the reactor. But the containment building is basically a bunker - it's a steel and reinforced concrete structure specifically designed to withstand explosion-level overpressures. Besides cold war military bunkers, nuclear reactors are pretty much the most hardened targets available. And even if the containment structure is breached, that's not enough - the plane needs to penetrate down through to the reactor core to release any radioactity (sure, there's activity in e.g. the primary coolant loop as well, but a breach there will only cause limited, local contamination).
And that's the worst case. Normally, you have an entire building surrounding the containment structure as well, which basically makes the whole thing a bunker with standoff armor.

So to summarize: it'd temporarily shut down operations at the reactor, but getting any appreciable release of radioactivity into the environment is extremely unlikely.

Au contraire. Technology (automation, decision-aiding systems, etc) can make up for a lot of stupidity.

The Americans say that nuclear power is feasible and that the nuclear waste is not a problem, the Europeans say it is not feasible and that nuclear waste is a problem. Most probably, the truth should be in between the two positions.

For me, if nuclear is a viable option from all aspects (including management of waste), then it is welcomed, provided that the dangers from mismanagement are minimized, i.e. if the procedures for managing nuclear power are easy to follow and minor deviations will not create havoc.

Not true, it produces very little waste but the walls of the reactor need something to shield the neutrons produced. The shield eventually acquires radioactivity due to neutron capture.

The other problem with fusion technology is the proliferation of fusion nuclear weapons. If for example Iran decided to build a fusion plant, they would eventually also figure out the system to build a fission-fusion type weapon.

If you read dumbed down news like CNN they'll never tell you these things because they want as much public support for the hype as possible without any drawbacks so your tax money can be used without your senator worried about being reelected.

There might be just as many problems with fusion as there are with fission, and as long as the world doesn't explode due to some religious nut then the technology is safe and sound. I mean Iran's president of course.

That's a great point (and I mean that) except that it doesn't even apply to our current power infrastructure.

Nuclear energy is much safer because they're required to take precautions because everyone is so afraid of it. The same cannot be said about other means of energy generation.

Because you'll be ruining the efficiency of the cars' engines. The energy those strips would be collecting would not be 'wasted' energy, but rather the energy that was meant to be used for moving the cars in the first place.

But not just cars, people walking etc as well...

I am an European, I am for nuclear power and I dont care where the waste goes to.

I have yet to see Chernobyl pale in comparison to any coal or oil plant but everyone thinks the Russians and the USSR are the only idiots who can't handle nuclear power so the US ramps up support saying that cannot happen. The fact is there is always a chance a reactor can meltdown. Its a chance and there is no way around human error, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, freak airplane crashing into the reactor, homer Simpson types at the plant, or some other reason that might just make the thing blow up. 3 mile island is the last reactor accident in the US and that was one reason why no one proposed a new plan and actually funded it till now.

Many modern reactors have passive safety features that prevent meltdown. Meaning they don't have to be triggered at all.

Moreover, the entire world haven't seen a meltdown since 1986 which was under the collapsing Soviet Union. Meanwhile, we've had plenty of oil spills and wars over oil. Heck, I just realized that more people are going to die trying to control oil than are going to die in any nuclear accident.

The biggest issue with "safety" with nuclear energy is that people don't understand it like they do standard physical reactions like combustion. They treat it like magic, and fear it accordingly.