Bluebottle, the buildings used for the nuclear power plants, will simply be decommissioned and treated like any other building, even demolished if necessary.
The reactor or radio active parts like the fuel rods etc; in the past, and as far as I know, to this day, are being stored in all manner of random sites, till they can figure out what to do with them.
Sites as vulnerable to decay and leakage as old ships, in certain coves and coastal sites around the world.
I think it is well and truly time to revisit thorium salt reactors.
From what Alan says they sound like a definite starter and come witj little or no safety implications.

Thanks ALTRAV, I don't have an issue with nuclear reactors. My concern is with the MILLIONS of photovoltaic panels which are full of toxins, being erected without limit or control all over the world and for which there is no clear method of disposal. They are already getting dumped in landfills.

Bluebottle,

And solar panels may produce more CO2 in their construction and maintenance and eventual replacement, than they save. Wind towers too.

On the other hand, the biotic environment - plants etc. - NEED CO2 to survive and grow and reproduce. I'm always a bit puzzled about reports of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere -after all, how much SHOULD there be in order for the biotic environment to survive ? 200 parts per million ? i.e. we need to deal with the other 210 parts per million, not the whole shebang ?

Clearly, a fool can ask questions that may stump the geniuses on OLO :)

Joe

Bluebottle, you make a valid point about solar panels and so too, loudmouth on wind turbines.
I have a particular dislike for them both as I challenge the more obvious reason of visual pollution.
As a rule I dismiss any negative emissions produced in the process of manufacture, only because I believe the end justifies the means.
But current renewables are a useless and politically motivated and propagated or driven ideological nightmare which has already begun to bight us on the bum, financially, performance, reliability and of course let's not sideline the greatest negative of all; visual pollution.
So these stupid renewables, are costing a fortune, are way too under-performing, needing constant attention and service, are continually self destructing, cannot EVER produce full load base-line power, and are a bloody great eyesore.
So WTF is so good about them.
They should never have been launched at this level of incompetence and reliability.
Renewable's will NEVER be able to handle the extreme power demands required for now and in the future.
The greens need to be removed from the face of the Earth and we need to look at strong, reliable power generation, such as nuclear or thorium salt reactors.
Not this ignorance and arrogance based stupid renewable joke of a NON-solution.

What we need to do is go back to coal fired power station, which supply cheap reliable power, & simultaneously feed the flora which we require to survive.

Having reestablished a sensible power supply we should allow anyone to build any form of nuclear power station, anywhere that locals desire it, provided it is up to accepted safe standards, to compete with that coal.

We could also allow any other form of generation, proven safe, to be built by anyone who wants to compete on equal terms with coal, again only where locals want it.

Then we should stand back & let the best system win.

Joe, et al. The problem with too much CO2 in the atmosphere is that it also dissolves in the ocean and lowers the pH. This extra acidity is causing grief to molluscs and crustacea. So, even if there was no AGW it would still be advisable to limit our production of CO2. With regard to nuclear power, in whatever form we are able to construct, I fear that it will probably too late to make for the shortfall before that happens. I may just be around to see that happen, only 16 years to go before I receive birthday wishes from King Charles III.
David