only bad attitude causes economic loss in peaceful use of atomic power plants
This is going to be controversial. I think most people have an opinion, but few people have an understanding of the technology.
I would say that the environmental impact of nuclear power is lower than power generated from fossile fuels. I had always thought that nuclear weapons program, or just the potential to create nuclear weapons in the future, was a major motivator for countries to build nuclear power stations.
I had a look at Uranium Information Centre of Australia (http://www.uic.com.au) which is funded by uranium mining companies and is quite pro nuclear energy. They maintain that nuclear power is about the same cost as fossil fuel (although the 5% per annum finance cost of the reator is a bit low and makes their calculated cost appear low).
There doesn't seem to be much interest in hydrogen fusion research - perhaps because there aren't weapons technology spin-offs.
This isn't to say that nuclear power of some kind won't become cost effective at some time in the future.