The weapons proliferation part has already been dealt with, since it depends on the type of nuclear reactor you build. Thorium salt reactors, are non-proliferation by design.

> costs too much

because we haven't invested in any experimentation in most markets. The US has stopped building new reactors for decades. There's no reason why nuclear reactors can't be made to be cheaper.

> I think it's no longer great;

This needs a benchmark. Nothing is great in absolute. It's still great vs all the other energy productions methods. Solar need huge surfaces to produce large quantities of energy, and solar panels require very toxic materials for manufacture... nothing's perfect unfortunately.

I love how there's always someone citing some future reactor design in response to criticism. Of course it's different future designs for each specific argument against nuclear technology.

For thorium, the wikipedia page lists 22 disadvantages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reacto.... It may well be the longest list of arguments against I've seen on Wikipedia, including, by the way, proliferation risks.

> The weapons proliferation part has already been dealt with, since it depends on the type of nuclear reactor you build. Thorium salt reactors, are non-proliferation by design.

It's interesting how you say "has been dealt with" and then point to a technology that barely exists in reality. Thorium reactors have been promised as a solution since a long time, people have predicted that many of them will be built really soon. It hasn't happened.

> Thorium salt reactors, are non-proliferation by design.

No. In some ways they're much worse, in fact.

> Nothing is great in absolute. It's still great vs all the other energy productions methods. Solar need huge surfaces to produce large quantities of energy, and solar panels require very toxic materials for manufacture... nothing's perfect unfortunately.

Indeed, by many metrics (deaths per kWh, environmental footprint) nuclear is the best option we have.

Which parts of solar panels are super toxic and how does them getting into the environment rank against radiating waste?

The manufacture is indeed the usual silicon process which involves toxic chemicals, but they don't have to end up in the environment.

The cells themselves are pretty inert, although CdTe (rarely used but once popular) is quite toxic. And of course none of this stuff radiates.

People don't think about solar like lego. Once you connect the first panel your pumping out energy. Then you just keep going.

Nuclear has such a complex set of technologies and industry that needs to be developed and maintained. The buildings themselves take years to develop and construct.

Then there's the stigma around them etc etc.

Renewables just make more sense these days.