Comments by "James LaBarre" (@SenileOtaku) on "Good News: Small Nuclear Thorium Reactors are Coming to Europe" video.

@Pushing_Pixels Always the excuse that gets used. The very same people who reject any nuclear solution as "requiring further development to be feasible" will turn right around and defend their pet solution as "feasible with more development". It's the same thing either way.
3
@VFella It would be big news, unless there's a push by certain societal elements to eliminate any sort of power generation that isn't wind or solar. And the news media is right there with them (when I was at Newhouse School in the late 1970's I could already see how colleges were indoctrinating the future of media production and "journalism"). For those of us who are not out to undermine and undo the technological progress of the last 400 years, we understand that our energy needs of the future need to be handled by a variety of different solutions, not just one or two to the exclusion of everything else. There is no one-solution-fits-all, and if people aren't lazy in their thinking they can weigh for themselves the benefits vs risks and costs, and make their own choices without centralized authorities telling them otherwise.
1
@bartroberts1514 Geothermal is certainly something we haven't sufficiently exploited (think Centralia PA), but outside of localized implementations it isn't going to produce a large portion of our energy needs. Water power? Yeah, that IS a good source of energy, if it wasn't for the lefties and their ilk tearing down all the hydroelectric dams producing that water power. Wind? Would be better if done on smaller, localized scales (think of the classic old farm windmills, etc) rather than the expensive-to-produce 'wind farms', with components that can't be readily recycled after the wind generator's short lifespan (and don't forget wind turbines catching fire and spewing all sorts of pollutants into the air). Oh, and disrupting migratory patterns of birds (you know, the sorts of creatures the tree-huggers claim to be fond of). Solar? Do you consider the human cost of acquiring the raw materials (but you probably don't care about children being sent into dangerous mining operations, so long as you can get your new iDevice)? And what about (again) the ability to recycle the solar panels once they've outlived their usefulness? And the problem that many are produced in countries that don't give a crap about how much they pollute the planet or disrupt economic systems? I can hear you now; "but, but, these are technical problems that can be solved with more development (and a WHOLE lot more public money)". Quite true, but the EXACT SAME can be said of any nuclear technologies. Weighing risks vs benefits, and chosing what is best in any specific situation. But thinking of multiple solutions seems to be well beyond the capabilities of way too many people now.
1