[personZ]

Nuclear energy is hugely susceptible to black swan events, with very serious environmental and monetary consequences. Even the best, safest run facility, in an instance of sabotage, terrorism, conflict, or simple unexpected event (seismic, extreme weather), can turn into a maelstrom of troubles that will endure for thousands of years.

Further the nuclear industry is one with a very poor track record of promises versus delivery. The cheap power, for instance, tends to turn into expensive power when plants need to be refurbished at mind-boggling costs (such as here in Ontario where we've gone from the cheapest power in North America, courtesy of huge hydroelectric benefits, to one of the most expensive because of our nuclear legacy). And the waste issue remains a significant issue.

Nuclear was a great alternative to fossil fuels. It is a very poor alternative to alternatives (wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc), and simply increasing energy efficiency.

[rsync]

What you describe is true of the old style nuclear reactors (which, unfortunately, is all of them). I completely agree.

But new reactor designs (thorium, etc.) avoid the black swans and all of the interdependent complexity. We should be deploying them.

[the_solution]

Nothing you say in the second sentence is true.

Thorium reactors do not work reliably (just have a look at those that where actually built). The current designs do not work - we don't even have an idea how to do it right in theory. They absolutely are not less complex and are not in any way safer than any other nuclear reactors.