1) Thorium is safer but isn't being used effectively. Mostly because development of Nuclear power coincided with nuclear weapons, and Thorium can't be used to make weapons.
2) We can re-enrich nuclear waste but don't because of regulations. My understanding here is that the waste product becomes much smaller.
3) We have no clue what were going to do with all the solar panels after we're done with them either? They contain a ton of lead. They also produces something like 1000x the waste mass as nuclear. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't go this route, but I AM saying that we really need to have a wholistic well thought out solution rather than knee jerk fear.
4) If you compare CO2 emissions of France and Germany, one who went all in Nuclear and the other who went all in Solar/Wind. France has significantly dropped their CO2 emissions.
5) Gas power plants are typically used to supplement the downturn in supply of Solar/Wind. Nuclear is a terrible supplement for this.
Now Opinion:
I think that it's safer in the short term (assuming Global Climate Change for deniers out there) that Nuclear power is a better option for large scale reduction of CO2 Emissions until we have repeatable large scale solutions with solar/wind that are both recyclable and work at night / when wind is down. Because to support Solar/Wind Germany has had to rely on Gas power plants to supplement their gap in supply. Which they sell the excess to their neighbors instead.
As I stated above, I'm still digging around forming an opinion on this but it's why I'm at where I am now.
If the numbers added up China would be doing it already, but even for them - where they can still socialize the costs of failure (i.e. if it blows up, oh well, whereas in the West there's $100B in lawsuits) - it's expensive.
Not Thorium, but Bill Gates is invested in alternative nuclear, along with the US govt: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower
Drug companies can put more than that into a single failed drug, for comparison.
If nuclear was a much larger component of the overall generation capacity in the USA we'd see them load following up and down over the 24 hour cycle.
2. Put a fence around the hole
3. Put a sign on the fence saying "if you cross this fence you will die"
4. Put radioactive waste in the hole
5. Cover the hole
It's not a complicated problem.
From https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi...
See also https://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of...
Albert Einstein, in an interview with Alfred Werner, Liberal Judaism 16 (April-May 1949), Einstein Archive 30-1104, as sourced in The New Quotable Einstein by Alice Calaprice (2005), p. 173
The real problem is that nobody wants this waste dump in their state. The Yucca Mountain complex is pretty much perfect for this application but politicians killed it.