If you wanted a good faith discussion about potential ways of making nuclear acceptable, then maybe don't open with "as soon as they hear the word "nuclear", panic really hard and refuse to receive any new information that would actually address their concerns". All of your other comments have been fairly well indistinguishable from the standard gaslighting most advocates of mass expanding Gen III+ burner reactors spout.
If I take this definition of a 5, then reactor design (in the context of current fission concepts) is barely relevant, because the 5s start at the mine site (or in the case of breeders, in the reprocessing facility). Examples are Sellafield, La Hague, Kadapa, Serpent River, Rossing, Kakadu, Mayak and many others. One Fukushima is better than one La Hague. One chernobyl is preferable to a terawatt worth of La Hagues, Kadapas, and Sellafields.
At the other end there are unsustainable Kr-85 and other gaseous emissions during fuel handling for which there is no attempt at containment, fission product laden reprocessing effluent that is barely below safe thresholds for an entire continent's coast whilst only generating a few GW worth of fuel, long lived twice-cycled Pu240 and Pu241 for which there is no attempt at a clean reprocessing process, lost weapons grade plutonium, and (in the context of wantonly using as much energy as we please) waste heat cooking the planet directly.
Other 5s include at one end all small countries being locked into a small handful of fuel suppliers because plutonium separation and enrichment facilities are gatekept, or at the other end unlimited weapons proliferation.
Worth noting is in this context the current renewable industry has plenty of 5s but there are easier to see pathways to eliminating them (and many of them are eliminating themselves simply because highly polluting mines and slaves have a minimum cost marginally higher than abundant materials and full automation).
Some variation on a TRISO-style pellet based pebble bed reactor that somehow used natural uranium at high enough burnup that mining could be kept under control would be the vague shape of addressing as many of the 5s as possible. In this context there is still a near certainty of someone doing a Chevron and quietly dumping a few hundred tonnes of spent fuel somewhere it would begin leaking and be impossible to clean up in a few decades, as well as cumulative low level medium lived radioactive emissions with a similar risk profile (although different mechanisms and harms) to CO2 or methane emissions (ie. Harmless at low levels but terrible in aggregate).
It's difficult to imagine a scenario where the number of 5s in a fission reactor is preferable to the alternatives. You'd need a breeder that could take U238/Th232 and breed/burn all of the Am,Cm,Np,Pu until only fission products were left as well as some way of vitrifying all of the fission products including tritium and noble gases on site with no effluent whilst never having a weapons grade fissile/fertile ratio in any of the weaponisable elements. Even then there would probably be one or two quite nasty long alpha decay chains with at least one medium lived step due to the number of opportunities for transmutation.
Even if that last were solved, it's still inferior to solar for building a civilisation on due to waste heat.
Such a device is also far more scifi than an anuetronic direct conversion He3 fusion reactor which also solves that last to about the same extent solar can (but has a more difficult pathway to being built from abundant materials).
Well, you did prove my point. I said nuclear the wrong way, and you had a meltdown. Again, I didn't make any arguments against you. You put those words in my mouth yourself. Three times I told you point-blank that you misunderstood me, and not once did you ask for clarification. You didn't calm down until I told you that I agreed with you.
You thought you heard something you didn't like, you panicked really hard, and you refused to receive any new information I tried to give you.
Jesus fucking christ, way to punish a good deed. You receive one iota of charity as to your motivations and rather than engage in good faith you go back to 'see it's because you're irrational that you don't trust the constant gaslighting and you took my words at face value rather than assuming the most favourable possible turn of any ambiguity'.
There was no meltdown. I was outlining the history of why your cry bullying wasn't the enlightened rationality you were pretending it was. And why people correctly refuse to trust it for sound meta-reasoning even if they don't understand the technical details.
You've not even attempted to dispense any new information other than asserting anyone who disagrees with you for any reason is doing it for irrational reasons and all of the deal breakers are actually fine if they'd just see what the new tech is (but you also carefully didn't define it so it can't be rebutted other than loosely implying passive meltdown safety sufficed to answer every objection which you've now walked back without acknowledging).
At least the usual reactionaries have the decency required to posit a semi-coherent position.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Quote me gaslighting you.
You accused me of it twice without evidence.
First time, you thought I wanted you to believe people, and that since you didn't, you were panicked. I never said that. You did. The comment I linked explained to another commenter why I don't want them to trust anyone. I replied to you that I don't want you to accept anything that's unacceptable to you. And the panic refers to inability to engage in the conversation.
Second time, you accused me of not acknowledging past lies. But I had already said that the nuclear industry would have to address past bad behavior. And like I said, you shouldn't be trusting people anyway.
You argued with yourself. You gaslit yourself. You cry-bullied yourself. You had a melt down. I told you I wasn't saying those things. You said I was. Repeatedly. That's on you.
And why would you think that I have some super secret new information specifically for you? I don't know you. I don't know what you know or don't know. It was a general comment about how some people would rather throw a tantrum instead of talking like a normal person.