What about a thorium reactor design??

Surely adding Fluoride into the design adds a further potential for a widespread disaster if a failure occurs?

There are actually known types/designs of reactors, which can use all previously spent fuel waste as energy source & so can solve the huge problem of radioactive waste! But some people prevented them from ever getting built, by claiming they would cause "nuclear proliferation"!
Except that, very clear evidence shows, USA not building such reactors never prevented any countries such as N Korea or Iran!

Aah, the Department of Energy- where good ideas go to die.

A day late and a dollar short.

Prof Waterhouse is onto something- the Thorium MSR is far advanced, and about to be built in quantity- not in the USA where it was invented, but in Indonesia, which lacks the bureaucratic firewalls of the NRC.

o to Youtue and search for ThorCon.

ditto on the THORIUM REACTOR.........which is much, much much safer in terms of what do do with the discarded waste....half-life trivial in comparison.

Energy production MUST lead Green development in as much that suggested green concepts that is relying On electric production will doom itself. Electricity as it is provided in California (at the minimum) is expensive and not necessarily 24/7. In the past 30 years Southern California Edison must have changed its maintenance standards on Power Lines. They now, rather than keep power lines clear of trees or vegetation, just shut the power off to communities. In other words, a windy day sends some regions into the Stone Age, and in the Stone Age, there are no all electric homes or electric cars.
For any Green Projects to work you must have clean cheep electric power, and SCE is not into providing anything cheap.

No one has addressed the waste problem...

Finally! The government and industry is getting excited about nuclear power (again). It is about bloody time!!

Okay, I'm with you, but what about the waste? You just going to shoot it to the sun on a rocket and hope it doesn't fail and fall back to Earth? Maybe I missed that in the article? Clue me in, please. I don't want any more barrels of radioactive waste at Hanford, okay? I'm down-river from them and my three arms can't clean it all up. :-)

Another $600 mm down the drain.
And the article is wrong, 85% wants inherently safe cost effective nukes, where are they? Big nuke refuses to build them