As for 1) I don't actually think recycling is hard. Its hard in a society that wants to kill of nuclear reactors. A society that has a large amount of nuclear

As for 1) I don't actually think recycling is hard. Its hard in a society that wants to kill of nuclear reactors. A society that has a large amount of nuclear and intends to go to 90% nuclear its just flat out logical to go to fast reactors at some point. This was planned in all nations that were on the nuclear path. The US planned it, but this was prevented by the anti-nuclear people. French planned it, but it was prevented by anti-nuclear people. I think if you really have a society that relieas on nuclear and want it for the long term, eventually building some fast reactor and burning up that 'waste' isn't really that hard, I think its actually beneficial. You can make interesting things like medical isotopes, nuclear batteries and many other things from this 'waste'. > 2) When it goes wrong, it goes WRONG. See Chernobyl and Fukushima. I mean, Fukushima the only one relevant for this discussion isn't really that bad. Damns have caused devastation on a much larger scale. So have coal plants. So have gas plants and even worse gas infrastructure. Even most hard core renewables people believe gas as a back up need to remain, that means, gas pipelines remain for decades. A failure in a gas pipeline can easily be as bad and kill more people then Fukushima. So really, I think going 100% nuclear is not a huge risk reduction for society and even in case of an accident the consequences are not that unreasonable for what you are getting. Lets assume a nation like Germany, lets say the need 70 modern PWRs to power their nations. Assume every 50 years you get one Fukushima. I would easily take that deal. And I think reality is that in a nation not prone tsunamis that once per 50 year number is aggressive.