[beeboop]

>And none of that even takes into account how completely uncompetitive nuclear energy is in economic terms

Nuclear is extremely price competitive if you actually force carbon producing power generation methods to pay to clean up the pollution they emit. Which is something we require of nuclear but for some reason not any other.

> long-term storage of radioactive waste still lacks a proper solution despite decades of work.

This is both a solved problem and also a non-problem. Advanced nuclear reactor designs have effectively zero waste.

> It's a dead technology, and the time has come to stop wasting resources on trying to make it work when those could be used much more productively to accelerate the move towards renewables

It's not dead?

[Schroedingersat]

> Nuclear is extremely price competitive if you actually force carbon producing power generation methods to pay to clean up the pollution they emit. Which is something we require of nuclear but for some reason not any other.

Price competitive with fossil fuels. Still 10x the cost of renewables. Please do implement a carbon price though.

Also they don't clean up. There are unremediated uranium mines, nuke plants, mills, and plutonium separation facilities all over the world that are just left for the public to deal with while any money set aside is embezzeled or is only a fraction of what is needed for cleanup.

> This is both a solved problem and also a non-problem. Advanced nuclear reactor designs have effectively zero waste.

Closed fuel cycles are not a thing.

It's never happened. It's not on the drawing board. No series program is trying. The one reactor that allegedly could have a breeding ratio over one is used in a plutonium shell game and achieves nothing other than a small boost in fuel economy for some other reactors and to keep some weapons grade plutonium ready.

Reprocessing does nothing other than spew fission products everywhere.

[worik]

> Advanced nuclear reactor designs have effectively zero waste.

Really?