If the only output from the nuclear plant is some non-radioactive steam, could the ‘nuclear option’ ever become palatable? … Aren’t they a ‘safe’ way to do responsible nuclear power. Or can those two words not coexist in a sentence?
Nuclear fusion would be incredibly sustainable if someone could pull off self-sustaining fusion reactions (they key words are “self-sustaining”), but most scientists say it’s a distant gamble despite some promising advances here and there. It has very little to do with dangerous nuclear fission, however.
The problem with nuclear fusion is the money and resources we spend on fusion could be wasted on a gamble that never works (or works far too late for climate change) while we could be investing more research and development into wind, solar, energy storage technology, etc. which we already know works but is sorely lacking in proper funding.
If we already had something like the modern scale of the Manhattan Project in the USA dedicated to wind, solar, tidal energy, etc. and battery storage, etc. and there was money to spare, then I’d be more excited about putting more funding towards fusion now.
That said, I certainly would welcome a breakthrough in nuclear fusion. I don’t fear words like “nuclear”, just global climate change and wasting time and money on the wrong course of action when at least one solution is right in front of us.
And what about liquid thorium reactors? Aren’t they a ‘safe’ way to do responsible nuclear power.
Liquid thorium reactors still aren’t near as sustainable and affordable (edit: link fixed, thank you @miasm ) as wind, solar, etc, etc. - It’s a falsehood that liquid thorium reactors are safe especially once you compare them to wind, solar, etc.
