bob day wrote: the main issue I see is what will we do with all the extra energy, and how long will we want to run these reactors.
S Bengi wrote: I have a hard time endorsing aquaponics/hydroponics. So radioactive waste that is 1,000,000x worse than CO2 coal-power-plant waste is a hard sell.
I could get behind Nuclear Fusion where we combine H2 to make Helium. So no radioactive waste. The fusion process, can however make the actual (metal) device become radioactive. But they decay to safe level in 30yrs.
Personally I prefer coal powered electricity with all it's waste problems over nuclear. But luckily we have natural gas, which I think is an improvement, but even better is hydro/wind/geothermal. They all have their negative points, so nothing is perfect.
But I wouldn't say that I endorse natural gas power plants just because they are better than coal powered. And I for sure would not say that I prefer Thorium nuclear reactors just because they might be safer than Uranium/Plutonium Reactors.
All that said. If someone told me nuclear waste is sitting 30miles from my house and it will be a level 200 waste for the next 300,000yrs or the could 'COMPOST' all the existing nuclear waste in this 'new reactor' while also cutting CO2 pollution and planting trees, reducing mining and deforestation. Then yes I am all about tapping into the waste stream.
But if we are not going to do that then I prefer if we dump money and brain capital on.