...and can only say that even the worst nuclear reactor - and I'm even including the RBMK - is better than any kind of dangerous fossil fuel plant, particularly if one counts external costs, only one of which is extreme global heating.
I was amused by the underground reactor, because when I first changed my mind from being a badly educated antinuke - to an increasingly (self) educated nuclear supporter, I considered the idea of underground reactors, because, like many people, I had a poor understanding of the risks associated with the release of radioactive materials. Fukushima and Chernobyl helped me to understand that the risks, while real, are relatively trivial in comparison to the observed risks of not using nuclear power.
The LNT, I'm increasingly convinced, is garbage science, if not - as some contend, notably Ed Calabrese - fraudulent science.
I don't think - I 100% agree with Chris Keefer on this - that Canada should build any kind of thermal reactor other than the CANDU. They certainly do not need American technology, particularly as the United States is disintegrating.
The future is looking bleak, more than ever, with an obviously insane person running the United States, but any hope of human survival will depend on access to fissionable nucleic, which the CANDU is particularly capable of producing, particularly with the development of ternary fuels.
I am intrigued, however, by the MOLTEX technology, to which you directed my attention. I have for many years been intrigued by ZrF4 based molten salts, especially because they are an ideal fit for reprocessing from the fluoride volatility issue, and because they can put 93Zr to use. The more I look into it, the more interested I am. If my son does not achieve his goal of becoming an academic, it would be an outstanding company for him to join.
I note you also directed, initially, my attention to Chris Keefer. He's a real force for good in the world, and I admire his insights, and his defense of the Canadian nuclear technology. I'm a fast spectrum kind of guy, a plutonium and transplutonium fuel kind of guy, but clearly, among thermal reactors, the heavy water reactors are the best. I don't like them running on natural uranium, but if they do, while it's less than ideal, it's better than relying on enrichment. They are machines limited to making electricity, but as power plants for merely producing electricity, they are wonderful tools for a sustainable future, in the increasingly unlikely that a sustainable future is ever attained.
= new reply since forum marked as read