We, the world, need to move off fossils fuels and begin cleaning up our greenhouse gas contributions. We have something like 150 years of emissions to clean up. And we all still want to drive cars and do all the other modern, energy intensive things we do. Preferably, we would have started this before irreversible changes occurred, but we’re probably beyond that point already. So yes, we need more nuclear plans and the sooner the better.

As for the waste, that is a problem, and it’s entirely solvable. Much easier to solve than raging forest fires and the growing inhospitablity of climate change.

Isn't it unrealistic to assume that 150 years of emissions can be reverted? At this point it's more about slowing down the global warming rather than reverting it.

I doubt it will happen but there’s no technical reason we couldn’t reduce atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels if it was a high enough priority. Terra preta sequesters carbon for centuries and we know how to manufacture it, it’s just soil enriched with powdered charcoal. Turn cellulose into charcoal, spread it on soil, repeat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

Negative? Reliable and ultra-long term fuel disposal (i.e., the lack there of) is still unsolved.

Is disposal really a concern when we're facing the collapse of entire continent-sized ecosystems?

Compared to runaway global warming, even widespread radiation poisoning seems trivial. And such poisoning is both hypothetical and extremely unlikely to be widespread.

We need more than "clean" energy.

We need a change in a number of habits. We need actual leadership, and not only gov types. Etc.

Nukes are the easy short term way out. The issue is what that means over the long term and how it impacts the other vectors in entity. of this problem.

Without a wake up call we'll continue to mindlessly zombie on, as we have been. Nukes __might__ slow that (but only if they don't also create a false sense of overconfidence). However, they're not going to alter the course. They alone are not going to change the end.

Engineering wise the disposal problem is solved. Making it politically palatable isn't.

Australia has long debated taking the world's nuclear waste, numerous commissions have found it feasible and safe. The community is overwhelmingly against it though.

99% of nuclear waste, and basically all the long-term stuff, is transuranics. Those are fuel, for fast reactors like this one. Consequently they produce 1% as much waste as conventional reactors, and it goes back to the radioactivity of uranium ore in about 300 years.

Another consequence is that these reactors can use most of our existing stockpile of nuclear waste as fuel. It's the only technology that can actually reduce our waste stockpile instead of just storing it somewhere.

Storage for 300 years is generally considered a solved problem. I think the basic idea is to encase the waste in blocks of glass and bury them somewhere.

I was referring specifically to the parent's concerns. Fuel disposal is certainly a problem in nuclear in general. I'm not sure about this specific reactor type; it's possible it produces less-troublesome waste, but I don't know. Most power generation is exceedingly bad for the planet in one way or another, but nuclear is certainly a whole lot better than fossil fuels.

According to many politicians, the Simpsons, the general public, and the anti-nuclear community, yes. But not according to geologists and engineers! The Finns have a deep geologic repository for long term waste storage under constructions [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...

Safe storage is not even remotely a technical problem. It's a political issue. NIMBY concerns over transport are the only barrier. The government already has a completely viable storage facility plan at Yucca Mountain.

> I don't think we're facing any critical electricity shortage

Shortage? No. But energy could always be cheaper.