Some objections to nuclear power, and the answer to those

It has long been my opinion that the anti-nuclear people are doing a disservice to mankind.

But this is an opinion of an amateur.  I am not a nuclear physicist type, so I cannot explain myself scientifically in all its detail.  However, what I have learned about it as an observer does not dissuade me in the least with respect to its potential as a solution to a lot of problems.

The number one objection is that bombs can be made from fissionable materials.  That objection is handled if you use Thorium.  It stands to reason that it is true, because if it were not, somebody would have done it by now.  In fact, someone already has.  The USA made a bomb out of the stuff, and it was a dud, for the most part.

Look, there is no need to downplay this risk.  It is going to be a risk that somebody is going to try to make bombs with these things.  Yes, it can be done, but it is not easy.  If it were easy, it would have been done already as mentioned.  Therefore, you know the risk is small.  But the risk is not zero.

This leads you to having to do a risk-reward analysis.  Is the risk worth the reward?  At present, the world seems to be saying "no".  However, at some point, the people out there are going to have to reconsider.  If you have a lot of distress coming from a lack of energy resources versus the risk of somebody making a bomb out of this stuff, I think the reward is going to start looking good at some point.  That point does not yet exist.  But it will.

The risk is small and manageable.  There is also the risk in pursuing the current strategy of so-called renewables, which will never work.  There is no workable way for that path, and eventually that must lead you back to nuclear.

If you decide that you can accept that risk,  you are still not finished.  There is the risk of radiation.  However, that is another one of these risks that you can manage.  You will also have to decide if it is worth the risk.  In my opinion, the risk is even less than with a bomb, and even more manageable.

For instance, with conventional reactor technology, you have a lot of waste.  Most of that is unused uranium.  Therefore, you haven't created new radiation hazards.  It is still the same stuff as before.  There are some other wastes that are produced as well, and one of those is fissionable plutonium.  However, as mentioned above, fissionable plutonium is not an issue with Thorium.

If you use Thorium, you will a decay chain that doesn't include fissionable materials.  It is as simple as that.  The only way you make a bomb with this stuff is with the uranium that you breed from Thorium.  That stuff isn't practical for a bomb, as discussed above.

 With molten-salt reactor technology combined with Thorium, you will consume all of the uranium, and you are left with much less waste.  Even less radioactive stuff than what you started with.

What about the waste that is left?  It is about 1% of what you started with.  Seems like a good deal to me.  You get all that energy, with hardly no waste.  The waste that is left is not zero, however, so you have to manage it.

It is not an impossible problem.  There are ideas out there to encase it in glass, and store it for about 300 years.  That sounds like a long time, but if you put it in a place where it cannot be disturbed, nobody will be the wiser.

Another idea is to encase it in concrete.  Concrete will last MILLIONS of years.  We know that from the limestone that prehistoric creatures made.  Concrete is no different than limestone, it is simply manmade.

What can go wrong?  Well, what if it leaks?  Not likely.  Even if it does, so what?  Just put it where nobody goes anyway.  The bottom of the ocean is a possibility.  In a deep mine shaft is another.  The Earth is a big place.  You can put it somewhere where it is a long way from anybody, and nobody is going to go there.   If they go there, they may get sick and die.  Yeah, and if they go into an erupting volcano, they will die too.  People don't act like that.

What if it gets out in the environment?  Again, so what?  Radiation is everywhere, and there is less of this stuff than what you already had anyway.  Provided that you seal it well enough, it isn't going anywhere.  Three hundred years in some remote place, and it is then harmless.  That is not that big of a risk.  In fact, I'd say the risk is near zero.  However, it is not zero.

Back to your cost benefit analysis.  If you look at the "risk" and the rewards, this will look good.  However, that isn't the way people think today.  But as mentioned, someday it will look a lot better.

Is there any way you can end up with more radiation?  Not likely.  In fact, that may actually be impossible.  I am not well versed enough on the subject to answer that definitively.

Of the ways to make things radioactive, there are two that I know of.  One is with neutron bombardment.  The waste left over may emit some neutrons, I am not sure.  However, it is unlikely that it does.  If it did, it could still be used to breed more uranium from the Thorium.  Stands to reason that the free neutrons are all used up.  The neutrons were all used up in breeding uranium from the Thorium.

The other way to make stuff radioactive is from pions.  If the process produces any of those, it is miniscule.  Therefore, even if any of that is produced, there won't be enough of it to matter.

In my opinion, the risk of making more radiation is for all intents and purposes, nonexistent.  The reverse is actually true.  You end up with less radiation than if you did nothing.  In three hundred years, you end up with nearly zero.  You cannot say that with the Thorium that you started with.  It has a half life of billions of years.  It will be radioactive forever.  Get rid of Thorium, and get energy out of it.   How can you lose?  If somebody did something that took tremendous effort and at great risk to themselves in order to cause harm?  This is unlikely, but even so, it is manageable.

In summary, even those there are risks, they are manageable.  The rewards greatly exceed any risks.  Even if the worst happened, it wouldn't not end the world.  The world will get by regardless of whether this is done or not.  The greater risk is to do nothing.  Doing nothing will result in greater distress than even the worst case scenario for the nuclear option.