I used to be anti-nuclear. The basis for this was one part "oh no, meltdowns!" and one part anti-war. The second part of this concern happened when I learned that the material in warheads is refined in nuclear reactors.

As I continued my research I learned that newer reactors can be built that do not enrich weapons-grade material. They can't be used for bombs.

With the new reactor technology, I was left with only the concern around meltdowns. Even with older technology, meltdowns are very rare. Newer technology---like what's mentioned in this video--is even safer..

Now, I'm an old hippie, and I still prefer solar and wind (in my ideal world) but my concern over nuclear was pretty much put to rest with all that I've learned.

As long as the powerplants are designed in such a way that they do not create material that can be weaponized, I'm pretty much okay with it.

A relatively good summary, but it's worth noting that Transatomic have been criticised for their sums not adding up. They may have fixed this by now, but in my opinion the best approach at the moment is Thorcon who have a design that uses no new technology of any kind and can be built right now with existing manufacturing processes. They have the people and the resources to do it too, they just need the financial and regulatory backing http://thorconpower.com/

I don't see nuclear having a renaissance anytime soon...
Solar and Wind are already cheaper, don't emit CO2, and don't produce nuclear waste that has to be transported and stored in exotic containers for thousands of generations.

Thorium salt reactors also produce waste.

Nuclear does make a useful energy source for NASA space probes though.

Moving this video to newtboy's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by eric3579.

Coal is responsible for many orders of magnitude more deaths and radioactive emissions than all nuclear incidents combined. But people don't care about simple things like facts or numbers. Talking about renewables when a significant portion of baseload power is still produced by coal is pointless. Let people have their feel good green tech (made in China, powered by a lot of coal of course ; ), but replace coal with modern nuke.

Denying the place of recent generation nuclear power as a viable strategy of supplying cleaner baseload power is much like denying man made climate change. Fucking moronic.

Thorium salt reactors do produce waste, but it's incredibly safe compared to breeder/lwr reactor byproducts. In fact, you can introduce older reactor waste in to the liquid mix in small amounts and the LFTR will break it down to less harmful components by accelerating decay in the core.

http://lftrnow.com/

"LFTRs can also burn radioactive “waste” we are currently storing, made from the LWR units of today. We could actually reduce our radioactive waste using LFTRs and other Molten-Salt Reactors (MSRs) (more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fqB6p9pgM)."

So LFTR is a strategy for both power supply and cleaning up existing waste storage. Who'da thunk it??

Another thing to consider about solar and wind being cheaper (per kWh) is that both have quite a bit of economy of scale working for them. They will continue to get cheaper as we build and use more of them, but not a whole hell of a lot.

Modern nuclear, on the other hand, has pretty much zero economy of scale going for it at this point. If we bought in, not only could we completely eliminate coal (still gotta have something in times / areas that don't get a lot of sun or wind), but the costs would go down a LOT between 1st prototype components and stuff that settles out as standard before the thousandth one built.

Nuclear is certainly better than coal... but wind/solar/hydro/geothermal is the way to go.

One of the things that makes me anti-nuclear is the radioactive and toxic waste. Weaponization, accidents and disasters all have a chance to happen, but are hypothetical. However, nuclear waste is created when things are running perfectly as planned, it's part of the plan.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx
"Direct disposal (after storage) to a geological repository. The material has very long-lived radioactivity, and will take about 300,000 years to reach the same level as the original ore.
Aqueous reprocessing to remove only uranium and plutonium. The material then only takes about 9000 years to reach the same level of radioactivity as the original ore."

I love how they say "only about 9000 years" like it's not a big deal hahah

Renewable green energy all the way :-)

I guess I'm lucky enough to live in a country where less than one-fifth of the electricity is generated by coal. So I don't much think of coal vs. nuclear in terms of the cancer risks as such. I'll never be close enough to the fuel of a nuclear reactor. And I'll likely be exposed to more toxicity from traffic than coal plants.

Also, our CANDU reactors can be powered by decommissioned bombs.

"CANDU reactors are unique in that they use natural, unenriched uranium as a fuel; with some modification, they can also use enriched uranium, mixed fuels, and even thorium. Thus, CANDU reactors are ideally suited for using material from decommissioned nuclear weapons as fuel, helping to reduce global arsenals."

https://cna.ca/technology/energy/candu-technology/

There is still spent fuel to be managed, which isn't trivial, but I'm okay with at taking a few bombs out of circulation in the mean time.

If Hinkley Point C is any indication, you're not going to find someone to finance/build a nuclear power plant, not in a capitalist society.

It's a massive upfront investment that private entities are basically allergic to; it cannot be insured due to the massive damage caused if things go south on you, so you need the government to act as a backstop; the price you'd have to charge per MWh is humongous compared to solar/wind, so you need massive subsidies, and that's without the ridiculous amount of rent-seeking corporations insist on nowadays.

That, to me, sounds like private is out. Hinkley Point C is being built by EDF, aka the French state, and EDF is struggling not be dragged into the abys by Areva, after the EPR in Flamanville is nothing short of a financial disaster. And we're not even talking about the troubles they are in for having fudged the specifications on the pressure vessels of more than 20 French power plants. Cost-cutting measures, as always.

So, which capitalist state is going to pick up the tab? Any volunteers? Over here, we cannot even get bridges fixed before they collapse...

And to be honest, I'm not entirely sure I would want a profit-oriented enterprise or austerity-supporting government construct something like an NPP these days. Look at the construction sites at Flamanville and Olkiluoto, they are modern towers of Babylon, with subcontractors of subcontractors from 30 different countries working for povery wages. Anyone think either of these, should they ever be finished at all, will come even close to the safety standards layed out in their official plans?

I would like to see thorium salt reactor put into production..

low waste..there's a hell of a lot of thorium out there-- several times more than uranium. So much that we won't run out of it and can use it for hundreds of years.

Keep in mind, thorium salt reactors have many disadvantages as well, including short lifespan, requiring an on site chemical plant to constantly maintain proper mixture levels, embrittlement and corrosion of containment vessels and pipes, etc., but the biggest hurdle is regulatory since they are 1) breeder reactors that enrich the fuel (which are nearly impossible to get approval for in today's climate) and 2) need fairly highly enriched fuels to operate, much higher levels than ordinary reactors (also causing major opposition).

None of those are insurmountable obstacles, but they are why we don't have them producing power today.