If the USA is to pursue nuclear power, we should at least do it using newer technology than our existing light water reactors. In the 50s to 70s research was done investigating so called Molten Salt Reactors. (now known as Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors) These reactors burn up 99%+ of their fuel and produce near zero trans-uranics (long lived radioactive waste like plutonium). They are also much safer as they operate at atmospheric pressures, and in the event of a shutdown, they simply drain out into a tank. There is no meltdown as the fuel is already molten, and no explosions due to lower pressure operations. I would recommend everyone read about LFTRs as thorium is extremely prevalent and is a found as a waste stream to rare earth metal mining.

If the USA is to pursue nuclear power, we should at least do it using newer technology than our existing light water reactors.

Regardless of how desirable that is, the NRC as currently constituted appears unable to license anything but a light-water reactor.  All the startups developing pebble-beds, molten-salt reactors, liquid-metal cooled FBRs, etc. have plans to build their prototypes outside the US.

Until the US gets a massive shift in the law which sets the NRC's authority and priorities (and probably cost-recovery mechanisms), light-water is what we've got.  We can still do plenty with light water, including thorium-based breeder reactors (a la the 1977-82 run of Shippingport).  If the law stays as it is, NuScale seems to be positioned very well to take advantage of a push to low- and zero-carbon base-load generation (and industrial process steam).

Your nuclear power plants already had TMI, when there was not supposed to to be an accident for 10,000 years. And you want less regulation? With out gov protection from liability and massive gov breaks, nuclear could not exist at all.

The answer is of course, scientific jargon. The fact that there have been MSR "incidents" is unimportant to the purity of the beloved.

The prototype they love so much, nearly blew up several times.

http://web.ornl.gov/info/ri...

Note, THESE ARE THE GUYS THAT BUILT IT.

"The reactor facility, called “Ole Salty” by some, was converted to lab and office space as the reactor lay in stand-by status. Then, in March 1994, samples of the off-gases in the process lines unexpectedly revealed uranium hexafluoride (UF6) and fluorine, a highly reactive gas. Where surveyors expected to find part-per-million concentrations, they found concentrations of UF6 of up to 8 percent and fluorine of 50 percent.

That, and the discovery of uranium deposits on a charcoal filter, prompted a precautionary evacuation of the MSRE buildings. Because the uranium had migrated outside the storage tanks, MSRE became a remediation project under federal and state auspices. But it was a brief disruption, and any risk of a criticality accident or release of radioactive gas was quickly minimized.

Engineers then had a more protracted challenge: How to remove both the UF6 that had collected in the piping and the very radioactive and chemically unstable uranium-233 that had collected in charcoal-bed filters for off-gases. Those filters were surrounded by a water-filled chamber, raising concern of a criticality accident that could have spread contamination for miles."

And in classic Donovan style, he refuses to defend or back up anything he's said, but just charges on with more nonsense to debunk.

Your nuclear power plants already had TMI, when there was not supposed to to be an accident for 10,000 years.

The connection of the water line to the instrument air line was a deliberate human action.  Sabotage is NO ACCIDENT by definition.

And you want less regulation?

All the NRC "safety" regulations up to that point failed to prevent TMI, because the utility was so busy ticking off items on the NRC's contrived checklist that they had no time or money to think about other threat models.

So what actually happened:  the PORV got stuck open, contradictory instrument readings led the operators to not do the right thing to treat the consequences, and the core melted down.  There were NO CASUALTIES; the defenses worked as designed, and were quite adequate to the task.  The appropriate thing to have done in the aftermath was to remove the core (which was done, some of it with hand tools; several meters of water makes a very good radiation shield), inspect the reactor vessel and systems (which was done; they held up very well and were judged suitable for service), then replace the core and bring the plant back up.  That last step was effectively prohibited by NRC regulations.  In other words, the thing that forced the plant to be decommissioned was not damage, but NRC policy.  THERE is your "financial danger".

The prototype they love so much, nearly blew up several times.

Wrong.  The MSRE required most of the salt inventory to be inside the reactor vessel, and much of it inside the graphite core moderator, to go critical.  Milligram or even gram quantities of uranium, even HEU, in charcoal somewhere cannot go critical regardless of geometry.  Surrounding LEU with light water requires a heavy-metal inventory of hundreds of kilograms to tons, as well as precise geometry.

If you had the slightest bit of skepticism you'd look at the phrase "chemically unstable uranium-233" and realize that the author is a scientific illiterate and a shameless fearmonger.  Or perhaps you are pushing this because you are also a scientific illiterate and a shameless fearmonger.

Note, THESE ARE THE GUYS THAT BUILT IT.

Wrong again.  The MSRE was finished in 1965, designed years earlier; the fear-mongering page you cite is dated 1998, after ORNL's nuclear research and researchers were long gone and replaced by "renewables".  In short, that bit of MSRE "history" was over 3 decades out of date when written, and written by its ideological enemies.

Of course, someone like you would never notice that the entire issue was due to letting the MSRE's salt mix sit for several decades.  Commercial MSRs would never leave precious fuel going to waste; they would immediately remove the uranium by fluorination to UF6 with recovery in a cold trap (which the MSRE's dump-tank off-gas systems did not have) and put it in a new reactor.  However, because of the POLITICAL decision not to do anything further, the U-233 was commercially worthless and was left to sit.

TL;DR from the beginning the problem was politics.  YOUR politics.

Jane fonda did it.

IAEA says we will start having uranium shortage by about 2025.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTC...

Nuclear is out of fuel.

Do you understand?

Let's just stop with the science fictions and get serious about renewables. They have free fuels forever.

IAEA says we will start having uranium shortage by about 2025.

<sigh> So what diagram are you choosing to cherry pick now Donovan? BTW you do realize that this study is over 15 years old and based largely on another study that's 20 years old right?

Do you realize the 2014 report has the very same 2025 date in it? you folks lost this one, and it's freaking you out as it should.

Nuclear power is a dead end. 2-5%, who cares? out of fuel really soon, 10 years, hey you can argue a few more years, but the fact is:

Nuclear power fuel is on the same treadmill as fossils, and in fact is now at the point where the mining volume are similar.

and that's for 2-5% of the worlds energy!

what a joke!

solar and wind are 1/4 the cost, Lazard, and have infinite free distributed fuel.

folks, please, it's not even a question. nuclear is nothing, can solve nothing, and only provide massive million years wastes that we will suffer with longer than human being have existed.

Do you realize the 2014 report has the very same 2025 date in it?

For RAR only. Keep reading.

Nuclear power is a dead end. 2-5%, who cares?

Yeah you were only out by 250% and 2% was something you seemed to make a big deal of until your number was shown to be wrong.

out of fuel really soon, 10 years, hey you can argue a few more years,

You refuse to accept that your cherry pick denotes only an estimated RAR shortage nor that there are caveats to the study that raise serious doubt about even RAR shortages given new technology (MSRs, both Uranium and Thorium) coming on-stream within a decade.

Nuclear power fuel is on the same treadmill as fossils, and in fact is now at the point where the mining volume are similar.

What??!! Not even close. You can't actually believe that.

nuclear is nothing, can solve nothing, and only provide massive million years wastes that we will suffer with longer than human being have existed.

Indeed there's a problem with current solid fuel, water-cooled thermal reactors. Way too much of the fuel remains. "Waste" you call it and yes that stuff has long lifetimes however don't assume that nuclear technology will remain as it is. In fact, the most promising new designs will start burning all that "waste" and leaving 1% of current "wastes" with half-lives of only 100s of years. All that without mining further uranium (or thorium) for many years! So much for your "running out of fuel" delusion.

All the pro nuclear folks have, when faced with the 2025 shortage prediction, is science fiction future fantasy tech that will save them. It's the same list they have had for 50 years: breeders of which one is operating and caught fire 14 times, and is super expensive.

The Thorium, which does not run in current reactor, and has half the RAR of uranium,

then uranium from seawater which would take the entire Rhine river's for of seawater being filter per reactor.

FACT: given current commercial tech, current RAR estimate, the shortages are predicted to start in 2025, and have been predicted for the same data for at least 14 years.

Some new ore has been found, but other ore deposits turned out more limited than estimated.

As usual nuclear fans don't understand the tech. every ton of uranium fuel requires at least 100,000 tons of ore are the average .2% Then there is often massive overburden to be removed, over 5000 times the tonnage of ore in some cases.

In Situ permanently contaminates our water source by injected acid into the ground and collecting a small percentage of the leachant to extract the uranium.

Sabotage, that's a good one.

The reprocessing system was never built, only lab test of the individual step were ever done. You precious prototype was a disaster.

And just like that prototype, commercial power reactors are in "SAFTOR" for 60 years instead of being decommissioned now.

Big money putting of the costs till they are dead and gone. Who pays? the citizens as usual.

And just like that prototype, commercial power reactors are in "SAFTOR" for 60 years instead of being decommissioned now.

Letting the cobalt 60 and about 3/4 of any Sr-90 and Cs-137 go away before bringing in people to do the work.

Big money putting of the costs till they are dead and gone.

There's this thing called "the decommissioning fund" that you would know about, if you weren't a professional disinformation artist.

The reprocessing system was never built, only lab test of the individual step were ever done.

It was a laboratory reactor, and the 1968 removal of the initial U-235 charge was successfully done in just 46 hours.

Of course, a professional disinformation artist would never bother to, you know, cite actual unbiased information about the issue.  Facts are your enemy.

Read the link to the ORNL molten reactor I gave you, you are talking about something else.

Removing the last spent fuels charge is not decommissioning. You got caught again trying to mislead people, you do that a lot, have you considered professional help?

Decommissioning cost are around a billion dollars, and they never end. The storage sites have to be maintained and guarded for a million years. When you look at the capacity factor of nuclear, you really should include the build and decommissioning times as well. That's drop nuclear below 50%. Solar and wind go up quick, and go down and are replaced on the same property quick. If you include the million years storage for nuclear, then nuclear has a capacity factor of 1/30,000th.

Its the nuclear industry that spend billions on pr and influence.

Read the link to the ORNL molten reactor I gave you, you are talking about something else.

ORLY?  Your link is a 1998 hit piece on the MSRE.  My link is a 1972 post-shutdown study on the MSRE.  AAMOF, my reference is a preliminary study about work that, if it had been financed at the time, would have completely eliminated the issues mentioned in yours.

To be a successful disinformation artist, you need to be believable and not ridiculous.

Removing the last spent fuels charge is not decommissioning.

Removing the uranium from the fuel salt eliminates any possibility of it being volatized and winding up in pipes and filters.  As I wrote before, "because of the POLITICAL decision not to do anything further, the U-233 was commercially worthless and was left to sit."  But you're a disinformation artist, so you'll deny clear words that debunk what you say long before you say it.

Decommissioning cost are around a billion dollars, and they never end.

An early-type BWR near me was decommissioned and the buildings totally removed.

The storage sites have to be maintained and guarded for a million years.

The fission products fall below the activity of the original uranium ore in about 500 years.  You still have some things like Pu-239 in spent LWR fuel, but that's nuclear fuel and can be completely consumed in fast reactors; there's no reason to leave it just to sit except anti-nuclear ideology.

When you look at the capacity factor of nuclear, you really should include the build and decommissioning times as well.

But you don't include abandoned wind farms.  You really have a bad case of "nuclear is bad and I will grasp at any straw to demonize it".  You also exaggerate "renewables", counting large hydro when touting total generation but downplaying it elsewhere.

Its the nuclear industry that spend billions on pr and influence.

Yeah, really.  An industry that's hamstrung by absurd NRC decisions (like the Vogtle base mat rebar spec decision that delayed work for months) has "influence".  In truth, nuclear industry leaders are wimps.  That's why you find it so easy to attack them.

All it would take to destroy the Green propaganda about a "renewable economy" is to actually build one and show the public the bill.

Science fiction and excuses. and still out of fuel. Even the IAEA agrees.

You can't burn it, there is no reactor for that. stop claiming you can.

Why bother? We don't need nuclear. We don't need coal. We don't need oil. Sun and wind are extraction-free and waste-free energy. Read Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free Future free download from Institute for Energy and Environmental Research http://ieer.org/projects/ca...

Fantasy solutions make us all feel better but the reality is that we need ALL low carbon power sources to replace fossil fuels. People who say otherwise are either lying to you or have not the faintest clue how extremely difficult the transition will be.
Even if we use ALL low carbon power sources it is not assured that we will be able to reduce our CO2 emissions fast enough to prevent climate catastrophe.

We need enough low carbon capacity to allow us to quit fossil fuels. Which low carbon capacity we use is a different issue.

Price is important. Safety is important.

If one or more sources are cheaper than another or others does it not make sense to pick them, all other things being equal?

If one or more sources are safer than another or others does it not make sense to pick them, all other things being equal?

And, if all other things were equal, would not we be best off picking the sources which can be installed fastest which would allow us to reduce fossil fuels soonest?

Water and land use too. That means solar and wind backed with hydro and waste to fuels, all much cheaper then nuclear and available cheaper than even coal.

Nuclear is the slowest to install and the most expensive, we don't need ALL, we need only GOOD ones. Nuclear does not qualify.

Nuclear is the fantasy, with only 2 years of proven reserves, which is optimistic as far as being useful, and can only be built to about 5% of our power needs. As wells causing millions of cancers and costing over twice solar or 4 times wind.

Solar and wind are now available cheaper than any other sources.
http://www.lazard.com/media...

The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTC...
"As we look to the future, presently known resources
fall short of demand."

Nuclear is the slowest to install and the most expensive

But it was very fast and also the cheapest when AEC rules applied.  The problem is not with the technology, the problem is with the regulators and their enabling legislation.

France had a dramatic decrease in carbon emissions in around 10 years, almost exclusively with nuclear power.

And France is going renewable, what does that say?

It says that France managed to decarbonize in about a decade using nuclear power and now they have the luxury of fine tuning their power system.
Now that they have a low carbon footprint, they can take as long as they need to experiment with other low carbon sources and see what else works and what the true costs are and what issues will arise.
I say we should follow France as a proven, real world example of what can be done using nuclear power first to knock CO2 emissions down quickly. After we decarbonize then we can play around with other sources of low carbon power.

Prove it.

BTW, the CO2 numbers don't include mining in other countries where the get their uranium, nor the power they import from other countries. Nor does it include other GHG. nor are the number all that reliable.

Actually those CO2 numbers do include mining and refining, unlike the numbers for solar and wind which do not include transportation, landscaping and back-up power.

No they don't, you just lied. link to the study.

Accounting for emissions from all phases of the project (construction, operation, and decommissioning) is called a lifecycle approach. Normalizing the lifecycle emissions with electrical generation allows for a fair comparison of the different generation methods on a per gigawatt-hour basis. The lower the value, the less GHG emissions are emitted. http://www.world-nuclear.or...

Their article includes no details whatsoever.

Typical stuff a nuclear janitor would recommend.

That wasn't a paper, that was an ad, with no logic nor equations linking the data to the conclusion.

Typical pro nuclear propaganda.

The NRC stands in the way, and has from the beginning.  The base-mat rebar issue was trivial (two different versions of the same rebar spec) and could have had no safety impact due to the over-engineering built into the margins, but the NRC held up construction for months anyway.  We're seeing similar issues with module deliveries from CB&I.  In the AEC days, a plant like Vogtle would have been on the grid already.

The NRC adds nothing but delay and cost; the only meltdown of a commercial NPP in the US was of a unit completed under NRC supervision.  The companion unit at the site, completed under AEC rules, is still running.

It was still not fast enough to install more than about 5% of our energy needs before the old one blew up or wore out. And there only 2 years of fuel. Liquid reactor are science fiction, and can have critical events leading to hydrogen explosions. Molten reactor can actually be harder to control as the early prototype prove. Now Mann will come in a deliberately misinterpret what I said, and correct all ,my language to avoid dealing with the reality.

France had a huge increase in radiation correlated cancers, France is going renewables, and admits they sol,d nuclear at a loss. France's nuclear program is a giant nuclear welfare program. Fracne export nuclear power to avoid throttling.

Why do you keep telling easily-refuted falsehoods, Brian?

It was still not fast enough to install more than about 5% of our energy needs before the old one blew up or wore out.

Around the time of the 1970's recession, which I am certain you are too young to remember, there were plans for literally hundreds of new nuclear plants.  The Wikipedia list of cancelled plants shows about 95 GW of net capacity for those units which have capacities listed; that would have boosted US nuclear generation from about 20% of demand to about 40%.

And there only 2 years of fuel.

Again, you're full of it.  There's not less than 2 billion tons of uranium in the world's oceans, and rivers add another 32,000 tons per year.  Total human energy consumption could be met by fission of just 5000 tons per year, and then there's thorium which is 3-4x as abundant as U and can be bred to U-233 with over-unity yield in slightly modified LWRs.

Liquid reactor are science fiction

"Science history" is the correct term; the first MSR was run in 1954, and the MSRE operated quite successfully from 1965 to 1969.

and can have critical events leading to hydrogen explosions.

You'd have to be insane to believe that a reactor that has no hydrogen in its materials or coolant, and only generates trace amounts of tritium, could have a hydrogen explosion.  Apparently you are.

Molten reactor can actually be harder to control as the early prototype prove.

The first MSR (the "fireball reactor") was trivially controlled by adjusting its heat removal.  Allowing it to heat up expanded the salt, making the core sub-critical and shutting down the chain reaction.  Cooling it again, with either the salt fuel/coolant or the secondary sodium moderator coolant, re-started the chain reaction.

Now Mann will come in a deliberately misinterpret what I said

Nobody has to misinterpret anything you write.  You're either an in-your-face disinformation artist or totally nuts.

Fracne export nuclear power to avoid throttling.

France pioneered "gray rod" technology to load-follow with their Westinghouse-based PWRs.  And really, who cares?  Uranium is dirt-cheap and is changed out on a schedule anyway.  If you have excess power, just dump steam direct to the condenser.

France had a huge increase in radiation correlated cancers

That is a lie.

Some people think "our" energy means only the USA. I was referring to world energy. "plans" to not equal reality. Electricity is a small part of our energy demand.

Uranium from seawater would require 5 Rhine rivers total flow to get the fuel for one reactor. Now, does that sound practical to anyone?
Breeder reactors have all been technical and commercial failures. This is scifi. The MSR prototype was the most expensive decommissioning in history. I'll let Dr Ryan handle the rest on future reactors. https://daryanenergyblog.wo...

But MSR have a bad history. http://www.doewatch.com/msre/

Ever wonder why MSR need an emergency drain plug?

More Donovan.

Some people think "our" energy means only the USA.

So you fail to define your terms, then cry "gotcha".  Typical.

I was referring to world energy. Electricity is a small part of our energy demand.

Electricity is a finished energy product, not primary energy.  Equivalent energy input is roughly 3x net generation.  Net generation in 2012 was about 22,000 TWh (p. 25).  That's 75 quadrillion BTU of electricity, equivalent to about 225 quads of primary energy.  That is roughly half of all human energy consumption.  Oh, see that "Other" line at the top of the graph?  It includes ALL the metered wind, solar and biomass generation in the world.

"plans" to not equal reality.

Nothing gets done without plans.  Of course, plans to do the impossible never succeed, no matter how much wind you generate with hand-waving.  Trofim Lysenko should have taught that lesson to the world, but some people don't like these pesky things called "facts".

Uranium from seawater would require 5 Rhine rivers total flow to get the fuel for one reactor. Now, does that sound practical to anyone?

There are a lot more than 5 Rhine river's worth of rivers in the world, and they all empty into the oceans where uranium is conveniently concentrated by evaporation.  Plus, I'm sure you are only counting U-235 and not total fissionable content (again, not defining your terms or providing a reference).

Breeder reactors have all been technical and commercial failures. This is scifi.

Superfenix, Monju and EBR-II were all shut down for political reasons, not commercial reasons.  Russia has the BN600 in service and several BN800's under construction.  GE-Hitachi has the S-PRISM ready for sale, just waiting on something to pass political muster someplace (like Sellafield).  Some "commercial failure".

Why does everything you write look like a lie when you examine it closely, Brian?  Probably because it is.

Ever wonder why MSR need an emergency drain plug?

Ooh, an attempted gotcha phrased as a question.  You are getting a teensy bit more sophisticated.  Unfortunately, you're still too slow to even get the gimmes.  No MSR to date has ever needed to use its emergency drain system.  However, the "freeze plug" has made a very convenient way to shut down the reactor for maintenance or just because the crew was going off-duty.  I'm told the MSRE was closed down for weekends by opening the circuit breaker on the freeze-plug cooling fan.  Without power, it emptied the reactor into the dump tank where the salt was air-cooled and more or less inert.  On Monday when the crew came back they'd turn the cooling fan back on, pump the salt back into the reactor, and they were back in business for another work week.

Using the "emergency" shutdown once a week proved the total walk-away passive safety of the MSR.  It's very interesting that you try to pitch this as a fault.

But that's not the most interesting part.  It's why you bother to go on the attack against a technology that's not even licensable by the NRC as it's constituted today.  All the potential benefits of MSRs, like being able to burn today's spent LWR fuel and generating steam hot enough to be drop-in replacements for coal-fired boilers, are things that simply cannot be enjoyed by the USA under current rules.  Instead, they'll go to India and China (which both have active MSR programs).

It's almost like... you're a paid agent of the fossil-fuel lobbies, pretending to pose as an "environmentalist".  Like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  One thing's for sure, you'd have to be a really pathetic tool to do their dirty work for free.

"Russia has the BN600 in service and several BN800's under construction"

Just to elaborate, the BN-600, which comprises unit 3 of the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station, has been producing 600 MWe to the grid since 1980, using a core only 41 by 81 inches in size.

Unit 4 at BNPS is the new BN-800, using MOX fuel to permanently destroy 34MT of old Soviet weapons-grade plutonium, per an agreement with the U.S. It is currently undergoing low power testing: world-nuclear-news(dot)org/NN-Russias-BN-800-unit-brought-to-minimum-controlled-power-04081501.html

So it looks like we'll be buying Russian, Chinese, and Indian, MSRs in about 10 years time. Why? I blame Net Present Value (NPV) that forces our "energy" industries (Oil & Gas) to extend sales out about 10 years as a requirement to their Shareholders. They transitively fund "environmental" organizations such as NRDC, Sierra Club, FOE, and even their sometimes enemies in order to extend the current state of affairs and keep revenues near in time.
So long as "suckers" keep parroting The NRDC and the other such organizations, I don't see the way out from under the boot of the Oil and gas companies. The United States just might be an Oil country until it's too late.

The bn600 caught fire 27 times. Sodium fires. it's not being used to breed fuel, just burn it up.

It did not "catch fire 27 times" - a ten-second visit to Wikipedia can confirm that. Anyway, contact of sodium with air produces a rapid oxidation, with production of toxic fumes, but it's a stretch to call it a "fire". Contact of sodium with water is more energetic, and the hydrogen evolved can produce a flame.

It was operated as a fast breeder reactor for the first 32 years of its life. Now it is being used to help turn Soviet weapons plutonium into electricity - is there a problem with that?

It has operated as a fast reactor, burning fuel, with at most 1.2 gain.

yeah, it wasn't fire, it was just rapid oxidation! LOL!

So do you admit that your "27 fires" statement was a fabrication? Did you hope no one would look it up?

A "1.2 gain" means it is producing 20% more fissile fuel than it is consuming - the very definition of a breeder reactor, as opposed to a converter or isobreeder. It has now been operationally reconfigured to permanently destroy Russian nuclear weapons material. One would think this would be a notable and laudable development. Instead, you choose to focus on sodium leaks that have harmed no one.

You are confirming for me what others here have already discovered - you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, yet for some deep-seated psychological reason choose to form erroneous but strongly-held opinions, and then foolishly display them for the entire online world to see. Sayonara.

27 leaks, supposedly only 14 fires. it's really hard to leak high temperature liquid sodium without a fire.

It's typical for the nuclear industry to call things other than they are to minimize the perceived danger.

“Leakage
generally led to the slow spontaneous combustion of this sodium in the insulation,
without triggering fires external to the insulation.”

In fact, only 14 fires "were observed" that's not the same as saying they did not burn. high temperature molten sodium burns spontaneous in contact with air or water. So tell us where it leaked that would not burn?

Electricity is fundamentally different than heat. combining them was always a mistake. One you repeat.

Electricity is fundamentally different than heat. combining them was always a mistake.

Worldwide, most electricity is MADE from heat (and most of that, using heat to boil water to steam).  But go ahead and prove your aggressive ignorance to any and all observers, Brian.

excuses.

Ionizing radiation and fissionable material pre-date the sun, and they'll be here long after the sun is a burnt out white dwarf ember. If the sun is to be considered sustainable, and renewable, why not Fission too?

Yes, natural radiation causes 100 times the cancers that nuclear power does. Obviously you are fine with killing millions more people. That's has always been the nuclear attitude, it was first made for bombs, after all.

Thats not only silly, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

What you saying, the nuclear industry as a force of nature like fire, and thus can't run out of fuel? I didn't think anyone would make such an illogical statement.

Out of fuel, do you understand?