>

Nuclear isn't "carbon free".  The mining of the fuel alone is disastrous, never mind the fatally flawed economics, the safety issues and toxic waste.  
What is carbon free?  All the various renewable sources.  And they happen to be improving and expanding exponentially while nuclear just continues to stagnate and remain corrupt.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot)


ADVERTISEMENT. In a reversal, the new policy says nuclear power provides stable output and serves "An important role as a carbon-free baseload energy source in achieving supply stability and carbon neutrality" and pledges to "Sustain use of nuclear power into the future."
Nuclear energy accounts for less than 7% of Japan's energy supply, and achieving the government's goal of raising its share to 20-22% by fiscal 2030 will require about 27 reactors, from the current 10 - a target some say is not achievable.
Despite the failure and closure of the Monju plutonium-burning reactor, Japan insists on continuing with spent-fuel reprocessing at the trouble-prone Rokkasho plant and nuclear fuel recycling, which has created a stockpile of excess plutonium and drawn international concerns over its nuclear safeguards.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: reactor^#1 nuclear^#2 new^#3 Japan^#4 policy^#5 >

Good on japan honestly >

Yea now fix Fukushima and make the rest earthquake proof >

It wasn't even the quake that was the issue on Fukushima. It was the tsunami that came after, and even that wouldn't have been a problem if TEPCO addressed the concerns from the regulatory bodies on raising the tsunami wall a bit more, another plant nearer to the epicenter was fine due to having higher tsunami walls in place and continued to provide power to the area in the aftermath. Even then, the plant would've been fine if the generators weren't taken out due to seawater flooding the basement, if only the generators were placed not on the basement.
Since then, most plants now have upgraded safety for those rare but freak disasters. >

A real concern/risk is always the human involvement... >

Which hopefully get's mitigated more with the newer Gen 4 reactor designs which have been devised to be passively safe. Where even if there was no human involvement, it would self-stabilize itself. >

Passive like the molten salt where they'll melt a plug to prevent runaway? 
Huge nuclear proponent but a bit behind on new developments these days >


Huge nuclear proponent but a bit behind on new developments these days

There's that for molten salt and sodium cooled designs, the freeze plug melts when there's total loss of power and drains the coolant + fuel to another container where it cools down. 
For HTGRs and VHTRs, high temperature resistance along with TRISO fuel where in accident scenarios it can passively go down to an idle temperature state (around 1200C on recent tests in Japan) via radiative cooling when active cooling isn't present, this has been tested and verified by Japan's recent HTTR safety tests in Jan (30% power) and recently in March (100% power). >

Brilliant, I'll look into those designs. Thanks! >

Nuclear might be the only "high density carbon free energy" while in production, so if we want to save the earth and keep our high comfort lives, I don't see any other choices...
Weirdly, people don't want nuclear because of the risks and the waste, but don't want wind turbines (noise, visual impact, even at sea), or solar farms (too much space, visual impact again) in their neighborhoods too, AND at the same time don't want to change daily habits (or simply can't), with lots of electrical stuff and soon to come lots of electrical cars...
And without saying that once built and loaded, it's yours energy for at least 10 years, and don't rely on continuous external fuel delivery, like russian gas (for example).
So nuclear might be one solution, but with studies to manage waste and better safety.
(Sorry for my English)
Edit: precision about fuel.