The Fermi breeder reactor that was outside Detroit had a fuel melting [link|http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucacc.html|accident] in 1966. There have been other accidents at experimental reactors where the machines have been damaged. TMI was "lucky" enough to happen when people were very concerned about nuclear issues.

There have been proposals to develop a standardized reactor to minimize the cost and, more importantly, fully understand how the systems interact to maximize safety. It makes sense to pursue such things, but there are very powerful economic interests that want to have control over their own designs, so getting the industry to accept a single design is a difficult problem.

Nuclear power offers lots of advantages:

1) The US has its own fuel supply.
2) Electricity production doesn't directly generate greenhouse gases.
3) The technology is fairly well understood.
4) It doesn't suffer the problems solar (limitations due to lattitude, clouds, etc.) and wind (irregular wind speeds and directions, etc.) have.

But there are still many problems with it:

1) Waste disposal.
2) Can it economically compete with "clean coal" when all the costs are included?
3) It still has terrible connotations in much of the country.

I think the technological problems can be solved. The economic issues are a very tough nut to crack, but are probably solvable too. But what politician is willing to stick his or her neck out and argue strongly for the necessary investment?

I don't see greater investment in nuclear power in the US happening any time soon (next 5 years).

Cheers,
Scott.