Fun fact, some of those (obviously false) statements regarding nuclear energy may in fact be true depending on interpretation of their original meaning. We stil

Fun fact, some of those (obviously false) statements regarding nuclear energy may in fact be true depending on interpretation of their original meaning. We still have yet to harness mass-energy-equivalence for power. Modern nuclear energy, both fission and fusion, are more accurately nuclear potential energy (like a hydro electric plant and water). From Wikipedia[1]: E = mc2 has frequently been invoked as an explanation for the origin of energy in nuclear processes specifically, but such processes can be understood as converting nuclear potential energy in a manner precisely analogous to the way that chemical processes convert electrical potential energy. I don't know, but it seems reasonable to me to conclude that when Einstein stated the following, he may have been referring to mass-energy-equivalence rather than nuclear potential energy, which in fact continues to hold true for the foreseeable future: There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence