John Cox:
There must be a world consensus on nuclear power, and that must include rational restraints, for the very simple and physical reason that for there to be nuclear technologies, there must be available a finite (and very rarified) amount of fissionable material.
Uranium and thorium are finite, actually very finite, and it is not wise to build more nukes due to this fact alone. The nuke industry tell you there are lots, and maybe in principal they are right, as instance sea water contains a small amount, but it is not economically possibkle to use that part (it would be better to use the fallout of Chernobyl and other accidents?). The impacts on environment becomes too much also. It is simply not true that nuke energy is CO2 neutral if we include this uranium enrichment in the chain. As long as we accept the nuke electricity as CO2 neutral we get no change?
One reason for the holding of nuke industry is also its waste, specially Plutonium, used for weapons. Plutonium storages are soon depleted now...
The waste lies in open basins now, and there are no plans to do otherwise. It is like a devastating trigger. To transmute it and burn it once more makes it even more dangerous. Maybe the plans are to use it for future weapons?
This shows very well the craziness in our global situation, I think.
Ulla.