@Narf As others mentioned, some of those nuclear problems were due to things unrelated, directly, to nuclear technology, and the main meltdown that was wasn't so much of a meltdown as a cough, and the cough-mask the plant had worked.
Modern nuclear tech is very safe, with the waste being its biggest concern, so long as the technology is used as intended. A bunch of our reactors were built in the 70s or 80s, with technology from that era or earlier. And are still pretty safe if used properly. Newer reactors with state of the art tech, would be even better.
Also, thorium. It's plentiful, efficient, and much cleaner for use as a nuclear fuel, but can't be used to make a bomb. There's a reason corporate and government interests have suppressed it.
And even if it isn't as nefarious as corporate greed interests, because uranium is more rare and thus more expensive, it still boils down to resistance to change. Too often people look for ways to patch the system so they can keep using it, and only rarely do they step back, look at the system as a whole, and critically decide whether or not it's actually worth keeping, or fundamentally flawed in some way. We used uranium first, because it could be used to make bombs, so we keep using uranium today. Lazy.
0
@Narf As others mentioned, some of those nuclear problems were due to things unrelated, directly, to nuclear technology, and the main meltdown that was wasn't so much of a meltdown as a cough, and the cough-mask the plant had worked.
Modern nuclear tech is very safe, with the waste being its biggest concern, so long as the technology is used as intended. A bunch of our reactors were built in the 70s or 80s, with technology from that era or earlier. And are still pretty safe if used properly. Newer reactors with state of the art tech, would be even better.
Also, thorium. It's plentiful, efficient, and much cleaner for use as a nuclear fuel, but can't be used to make a bomb. There's a reason corporate and government interests have suppressed it.
And even if it isn't as nefarious as corporate greed interests, because uranium is more rare and thus more expensive, it still boils down to resistance to change. Too often people look for ways to patch the system so they can keep using it, and only rarely do they step back, look at the system as a whole, and critically decide whether or not it's actually worth keeping, or fundamentally flawed in some way. We used uranium first, because it could be used to make bombs, so we keep using uranium today. Lazy.