'People' don't decide anyway.

It is what this government wants, no nuclear! But a change of government might.

Qanda and Fester believe in genIV reactors, but I do not. As I suggested in my earlier post (Tuesday's), the technology has to be applicable to politically unstable situations. In particular, I asked for

"a well-founded discussion of the advantages and drawbacks of committing one or more nations to an IFR nuclear electricity supply. Perhaps Iran could be discussed as an example."

Or Pakistan. Or Afghanistan. Or Syria. Somewhere the corporate corruption isn't so genteel, and people maybe feel they have less to lose by gumming up the works.

Given the instability of much of the world, geologically and politically, I prefer not to plan on an unforgiving technology that doesn't require to be run by a lot of Brahmanic specialists who are beholden to the sort of mega-industry that can afford to see them trained and employed. That's your Gen IV nuclear electricity system, and you still haven't really detailed or referred to how the inevitable radwaste is theoretically sequestered.

Of course clean nuclear is the only option!
Now where can we find some?
Nowhere I know!

"Now where can we find some?
Nowhere I know"

How about the same place as you will find all those cheap and wonderful batteries and renewables, the future?

"Qanda and Fester believe in genIV reactors, but I do not."

The viability of fourth generation reactors, like 24/7 solar thermal or mail batteries, are questions that can only be answered with scientific research. You might hope for certain answers, but those answers are not matters of faith.

"Perhaps Iran could be discussed as an example."

Or Pakistan. Or Afghanistan. Or Syria."

Perhaps what is needed is for nuclear power to operate under international control and supervision. If this were the case I would be quite happy to see nuclear power in any nation.

Sir Vivor,

What you do with the waste is the same as you do with most other waste products, i.e. you try to reduce its toxicity and its volume. Reprocessing takes out most of the nasties such as the highly radioactive isotopes and plutonium, most of which can be used in industry, medicine, or other reactors.

What remains is still enriched uranium (insufficiently for use but much higher than natural uranium) with higher activity than normal. This can be further enriched to the 5% required and re used, pretty much ad infinitum.

Fester says:
"Perhaps what is needed is for nuclear power to operate under international control and supervision. If this were the case I would be quite happy to see nuclear power in any nation."

Well then, let's do a hypothetical and put nuclear electricity in the hands of "any nation". Well, almost any nation: let's pepper Gen IV reactors across a selection of island states in our region:

Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Timore-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu

The above list is from
http://www.unescap.org/LDCCU/PICs-SIDs/SIDS.asp
"Small Island Developing States" in the Pacific region.

But just for good measure, we'll include Australia, French Polynesia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and New Zealand. We'll give each of these two dozen sovereign states one Gen IV reactor each, for argument's sake.

Ignoring absolutely, absolutely every other consideration, Fester, except your "effective international control and supervision", which we will assume is indeed effective, what is your ideal plan to manage and sequester the inevitable radwaste?

Shadow minister may also wish to ponder this hypothetical. Sooner or later, you have to deal with the waste.

PS Graham Y, I have done your little market research survey, but the bugger keeps popping up every time I refresh, like garbage out of a bin. I'm sure glad it isn't radioactive.