[andyjohnson0]

This is maybe the impatience of youth running up against the false certaintly of middle age.

I think the reality is that both sides have good points. Nuclear looks like the only way to create enough energy density to power modern societies. On the other hand, build times for current mainstream nuclear plants are too long given the critical situation we're in, and we still dont have widely deployable solutions to the waste problem.

[leethargo]

So, following your argument, we should at least continue to run existing infrastructure?

I wonder why these debates only focus on problems such as waste, catastrophic risk or investment/financing, but not sourcing of uranium, which might not be available from "friendly countries".

[andyjohnson0]

> So, following your argument, we should at least continue to run existing infrastructure?

Qualified yes. I personally don't see how we can make it through the critical coming decades without nuclear, but that implies we'll continue to create nuclear waste. The only solution we have is to deep burial. While I think thats fairly safe, the only operational facilitiy is Onkalo in Finland. We're going to need to build more, and deep excavation takes a lot of time and safe sites are limited. Not every country that will want to deploy nuclear power will have a way to dispose of the waste.

The other alternatives are shoot it into the sun (too dangerous at scale) or shallow storage (dereliction of duty of future generations).

So I dunno really.

As for uranium resources, theres a lot in Australia.

[leethargo]

I later looked up the resources on Wikipedia which also listed Canada as having significant mining capacity. So maybe that argument is not strong either.