Option #3: the country might become destablised enough to halt construction/maintenance entirely and the site will be left to rot, more or less, like the nuclear arsenals/reactors of some nations.

Also keep in mind, this is how we deal with nuclear waste in a stable, wealthy and highly industrialised nation. "Just toss it over there" is the mantra during good times. Times are not good in Ukraine...

Or maybe we tackle this from 180 degrees.

As opposed to what is happening, or how likely, we may find common ground on what it is we should actually be doing.

I've already made the suggestion of electric vehicles and fission, fusion or renewables in place of coal as the road away from emissions. Specifically improving li-ion batteries as Tesla is doing is a major step. Researching sodium-oxygen batteries would be even better as they can hold 4-5 times the power and have cheaper materials and recent results have us close to making them viable, so I'd like to see gov money directed there.

For power solar and wind are currently only cost-competitive because the scale is small enough that we get away with treating coal plants like giant batteries covering our baseline. They simply aren't cost effective to scale up for base load yet, and not likely to be for another 10-20 years. We can have a lot of nuclear plants built in that time. With electric cars coming into the picture, we're also going to need that extra electric capacity. I again would strongly encourage more gov money going into French style large scale nuclear power deployment. China's already doing it, even they've had enough of their current coal literally blocking the sun in the sky on them and nuclear is part of their clean air push. We should be encouraging that and following suit out this way.

I also wasn't kidding about Lockheed-Martin's fusion research. A lot of new ideas are out there for fusion confinement plans and Lockheed has publicly declared their intentions to have a demonstration reactor in 5 years time. I'm hopeful, and if that pans out, the roll out of truly cheap and clean power will start in the next decade for the sole reason that fusion under cuts coal for price.

Part of me reason for these measures versus more drastic ones is we need to keep our economies growing because regardless of what we do the next 30 years, the oceans will continue rising that entire time and the mitigation measures we're going to gradually be spending more and more on are gonna required us to have the money to do them.

If anybody's got better suggestions I'm all ears.

True, but on subs they are kept to strict standards with military precision, while many land based ones have issues stemming from being stationary (they heat the water in one spot, and that must be dealt with, etc) and more importantly, they constantly experiment to try to get more out of them...which caused Chernobyl and 3 mile island. The lax standards have caused more, but less damaging issues.
All that said, I agree a fresh design could likely benefit both land and sea based reactors. I recall a Canadian design that was a 'warm' reactor that never made steam, so was incredibly safer to run constantly, from at least 15 years back. Not sure what happened with that.

You can thank your favorite Ex-President, Carter, for that (at least in large part, he was an engineer designing and building the first nuclear subs).
Too bad land reactors aren't designed to be as safe or stable.

Sure are a lot of safe nuclear reactors on those subs, providing power for a long term.

Talon fucking fusion reactor deathrays motherfuckas for less. You best not joke around about the systematic enslavery and experimentation of living, thinking, feeling space entities, BITCH. Recognize.

*promote

...again... This is a good documentary. I'll have to see if I can find a HD backup with the same English subtitles done (as the others typically just use Google's "hope it works" system; and of course it always fails spectacularly). Not only is China doing to themselves the same things we also did to ourselves at the beginning of the 20th century, they are doing it on a far bigger scale. They are also doing many idiotic things right now around the planet. Like: they want to build a nuclear reactor in Pakistan, near heavy terrorist issues, and also a region where earthquakes and floods hit a lot; second, they want to create a "secondary" Panama Canal, that goes through Nicaragua (part of the path goes through the America's largest fresh water lake, which is also very important), and of course there are others.

They've just got their hands dirty with the industrial revolution, but they are taking a lot of bad steps; some of which just seem like they're meant to one day cause us or other countries issues...

We are dependant on fossil fuels, and they are killing us at the same time. This is why we need LFTR as soon as humanly possible http://videosift.com/video/Liquid-Fluoride-Thorium-Reactor-Google-Tech-Talk-Remix

What about all the unattended nuclear reactors?

You are partially correct, I listed the rank of a top submarine officer incorrectly, but not his position, I'm not in the Navy. He was Executive Officer of the first nuclear sub, but only First Lieutenant of the diesel. EDIT: He "qualified for command" of the nuclear sub...probably why I thought "commander" but properly should have said "was in command". Shortly after being assigned to lead the nuclear sub trials, after helping design and build it, he led the American shut down of the Chalk River reactor, lest you continue to insinuate he was an 'armchair warrior' that never held command.
(record below)

◾17? DEC 1948 - 01 FEB 1951 -- Duty aboard USS Pomfret (SS-391) Billets Held: Communications Officer, Electronics Officer, Sonar Officer, Gunnery Officer, First Lieutenant, Electrical Officer, Supply Officer Qualifications: 4 Feb 1950 Qualified in Submarine


◾05 JUNE 1949 -- Promoted to Lieutenant (j.g.)


◾01 FEB 1951 - 10 NOV 1951 -- Duty with Shipbuilding and Naval Inspector of Ordnance, Groton, CT as prospective Engineering Officer of the USS K-1 during precommissioning fitting out of the submarine.


◾10 NOV 1951 - 16 OCT 1952 -- Duty aboard USS K-1(SSK-1) Billets Held: Executive Officer, Engineering Officer, Operations Officer, Gunnery Officer, Electronics Repair Officer Qualifications: Qualified for Command of Submarine Remarks: Submarine was new construction, first vessel of its class


◾01 JUNE 1952 -- Promoted to Lieutenant


◾16 OCT 1952 - 08 OCT 1953 -- Duty with US Atomic Energy Commission (Division of Reactor Development, Schenectady Operations Office) From 3 NOV 1952 to 1 MAR 1953 he served on temporary duty with Naval Reactors Branch, US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. "assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels." From 1 MAR 1953 to 8 OCT 1953 he was under instruction to become an engineering officer for a nuclear power plant. He also assisted in setting up on-the-job training for the enlisted men being instructed in nuclear propulsion for the USS Seawolf (SSN575).


On December 12, 1952, an accident with the experimental NRX reactor at Atomic Energy of Canada's Chalk River Laboratories caused a partial meltdown. The resulting explosion caused millions of liters of radioactive water to flood the reactor building's basement, and the reactor's core was no longer usable.[7] Carter was ordered to Chalk River, joining other American and Canadian service personnel. He was the officer in charge of the U.S. team assisting in the shutdown of the Chalk River Nuclear Reactor.[8] The painstaking process required each team member, including Carter, to don protective gear, and be lowered individually into the reactor to disassemble it for minutes at a time. During and after his presidency, Carter indicated that his experience at Chalk River shaped his views on nuclear power and nuclear weapons, including his decision not to pursue completion of the neutron bomb.[9]

every woman Comes with a thermal breeder reactor....

Ulrich Beck, 1986:

“Whereas the utopia of equality contains a wealth of substantial and positive goals of social change, the utopia of the risk society remains peculiarly negative and defensive. Basically, one is no longer concerned with attaining something ‘good’, but rather with preventing the worst.

The dream of the old society is that everyone wants and ought to have a share of the pie. The utopia of the risk society is that everyone should be spared from poisoning”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/THE-VEGETABLES-OF-TRUTH

The embedded video taken below the reactor at Chernobyl is rather nightmare-inducing.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by mintbbb.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/10-000th-cycle-of-the-Annular-Core-Research-Reactor-1 ?