Sherab wrote: Malcolm wrote:
kirtu wrote:safe nuclear design (which does exist).
No, it doesn't. And the energy needed to extract uranium is hugely expensive, leaves radioactive waste behind, etc.
Molten salt nuclear reactors are considered to be "safe and proliferation-resistent".
"When it comes to fission reactor designs, there’s nothing quite as safe, efficient, meltdown-proof, waste-light and proliferation-resistant as a molten salt reactor (MSR), many nuclear experts believe." http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/ ... m-problem/
Well, MSR's may be better than other nuclear power plant but that's not saying a heck of a lot. And their waste may be shorter-lived than that of other reactors but that's not saying a heck of a lot either.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Advantages wrote:In theory a full recycle system can be much cleaner: the discharge wastes after chemical separation are predominately fission products, most of which have relatively short half lives compared to longer-lived actinide wastes. This can result in a significant reduction in the containment period in a geologic repository (300 years vs. tens of thousands of years).
Tell you what, if you promise to store the waste in your own backyard for that long, I will ... still oppose MSR's actually, now I think about it. They are still slow and expensive to build, still demand toxic fuel, still have low EROI over their lifecycle ...
Let's transition from fossil fuels to renewables, not to another toxic non-renewable.
edit: fixed formatting