#but a lot of the (very valid) criticisms of nuclear power - phrased as universal - don't actually apply to liquid fluoride thorium reactors

[technoxenoholic]

we have the technology (currently being developed and further studied and improved) to make nuclear reactors that cannot melt down (because a cooling system failure will stop the reaction; a meltdown is a runaway reaction that gets too hot to contain) and do not leave behind such huge quantities of nuclear waste nor nuclear waste that lasts for such an obscene amount of time (and iirc it can even take the obscenely long half-lifed nuclear waste from uranium reactors and re-use it more safely) and is more efficient and the materials are much more plentiful on earth and are safer and easier to mine than uranium

but nobody (exaggeration) wants to work on it because thorium can't be easily turned into weapons and it's more expensive and time-consuming to build and start up than previous (dangerous, uranium-based) reactor designs (but still pocket change for billionaires)

and nobody (exaggeration) wants to talk about it as a potential energy option or discuss its particular pros and cons because nuclear reactors that can melt down are Bad (which i obviously agree with, but that is not a relevant concern with reactors that can't melt down)

#stfu blue #not all nuclear power is created equal #like i don't think it's perfect #but a lot of the (very valid) criticisms of nuclear power - phrased as universal - don't actually apply to liquid fluoride thorium reactors #so the idea that nuclear power is Inherently The Worst Danger Ever really rubs me the wrong way #this post had better not get stupid attention i swear. some people on this site hate science #broadening our understanding of reality is something that is so important to me. do NOT come after me like 'NO! ALL NUCLEAR BAD!' #all nuclear worthy of caution and appropriate safety measures. behave.