> There are always passive safety systems, Chernobyl and Fukushima had too. The problem with these safety systems is that they are assumed to be built flawlessl

> There are always passive safety systems, Chernobyl and Fukushima had too. The problem with these safety systems is that they are assumed to be built flawlessly, which is not always the case. This is plain wrong - nobody ever was stupid enough to assume things to be built flawlessly. In fact, the Chernobyl disaster was caused by a mishandled safety test. > IMHO, we should definitely use fusion nuclear energy but it better be a temporary fix until we deploy the renewables. You mean we should deploy a temporary fix in the 22nd century? ;) (Fusion is unlikely to become practical in the next couple decades, fission is the one that we can do now.) > That's not even implemented yet as most of the waste sits next to the reactors because when these were built they also had no idea what to do with the waste. Kicking the can down is not a sustainable solution. Well, since it can stay in the plants after decades of accumulating waste, without clogging said plants, is it that much of a problem?