>>11417369Nuclear is only the better option if we immediately start building Thorium thermal cycle reactors immediately.
The upsides are numerous:
1. The abundance of Thorium in the Earth which can be immediately used in a thermal cycle reactor absolutely eclipses that of Uranium. Compare this to Uranium, where you have to survey specifically for rich deposits, then further refine the material for 235 content.
2. Uranium mining is dangerous and massively destructive to ecology. On the flip side, basically all refuse dirt from any precious metal or rare earth mine contains Thorium in useful quantities.
3. The reactor has a higher up-front cost, but can be expected to provide near-indefinite generation due to the abundance of Thorium.
4. Since these are thermal cycle reactors, they breed their own fuel, but because it's not a fast-cycle, you have no chance of a meltdown. The reactor chamber needs a medium to keep the molten salts fissile, so the addition of a freeze plug and emergency dump tanks can immediately end fission in an overheating scenario.
5. The waste decays in timescales that are orders of magnitude smaller than that of coal or existing nuclear power plants.
6. Solar is too volatile- You need vast power storage infrastructure (batteries) in order to solve this problem. Additionally, solar panels' efficiency decreases over time which means there needs to be constant manufacturing in order to replace them. The manufacturing of solar and batteries is not ecologically sustainable for an indefinite timeperiod.
7. Wind is damaging to wildlife. The best place for them is out at sea, but again these are volatile and will be constantly in need of repairs. Also, ocean storms can completely destroy these in rare occasions.
8. You can literally place a thorium reactor ANYWHERE. Any barren and totally unusable piece of land can situate one. The same can't be said for solar and wind due to climate constraints.
