3 ms·

I agree that nuclear has its place but... "we're moving away from nuclear - and that happens because of FUD and politics (which is also "short-term profit-led

I agree that nuclear has its place but... "we're moving away from nuclear - and that happens because of FUD and politics (which is also "short-term profit-led thinking")." ... I don't agree with that. I'd even go as far to say the opposite is true, one of the biggest issues with nuclear fission is the long life of nuclear waste, it's only when you have a long term view that it becomes a problem. Again, there are ways around this. From what I understand it's possible to reuse nuclear waste (are the power plants that do this known as breeder reactors?). Another big issue with nuclear fission is the other, more destructive use for it. Building reactors all around the world could aid the development of nuclear weapons. Again, that sort of insight isn't exclusively based on a short term view. Again, there could be ways around that. Am I right in thinking that thorium is harder to use in the process of producing plutonium? At most you could say about short term thinking is that the cost and lead times for producing new nuclear reactors seems fairly high, which would put off some investors.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Nuclear waste is pure FUD, I'd say it's one of the most successful examples of it in history. It's created in small quantities, it's much less dangerous than many waste material created by the chemical industry, we know how to manage it, and properly sealed it's harmless if left alone. The amount of attention nuclear waste gets is nowhere near commensurate to the danger it poses; it's seriously, seriously overblown. I'd wager asbestos is more dangerous. The proliferation argument is a good one, and it limits available solutions. Some thorium-based designs are indeed more difficult to hijack for production of nuclear weapons.