Advances in technology over the last 30 years are as irrelevant as the advances in scientific knowledge over the last 30 years. Deniers have accepted fossil energy into the hearts the same way that they have accepted Jesus. Expecting them to allow the government to fund nuclear research and offset some of the business development costs is like expecting them to support a constitutional amendment declaring Mecca and Medina to be the two most holy sites in all of Christendom.

Because the Denier political agenda is faith-based belief system defined by the simultaneous rejection of climate science and belief in the mythological creation stories of unlimited cheap fossil fuels, they would interpret any attempt to rebuild the nuclear energy industry as just another liberal-socialist conspiracy to raise taxes on every true God-fearing, sister-humping American patriot by forcing their acceptance and adoption of non-fossil-based alternative energy sources.

======

edit --

I completely agree. The fact that a political base is truly stupid and politicians know their base is stupid, but affect a shared stupidity publically produces a result that is more corrupt than if the politicians really were as stupid as the people who elect them.

America’s founders thought that the greatest threat to the survival of the nation they had created was that eventually a public “Idiot America” would elect politicians even more greedy and selfish than themselves. They were pretty smart guys, all right.

The problem with nuclear energy is not direct political opposition – although that is real enough, stronger domestically, but non-trivial internationally – the problem is that between the activist groups and the tabloid theatrical presentation of the nuclear industry by the media (not completely unlike the way they created a public perception that climate models ARE climate science) – research and development have been strangled half to death and we are ill-prepared to implement anything other than what we had decades ago.

Another problem is that although we can engineer better facilities we cannot reverse-engineer stupidity. Most nuclear accidents have been the direct result of stupidity. There number of incidents would be trivial if – when a problem was first identified – everyone has just gone home and allowed the system to perform its programmed safety procedures. Japan was guilty of indirect stupidity for being lazy in its study of things that could happen.

Finally, nothing will make any difference unless there is a comprehensive energy plan that is exhaustive, far-sighted, and developed free of public and political influence. At some point, you have to trust the professionals – and this is one of those times. If we only look at immediate remedies it will the same as if following Pearl Harbor we had moved the remaining fleet to another single location – so it could be bombed again.

It took 30 years to complete the interstate highway system; it took a decade (with a running start) to realize Kennedy’s dream of a moon landing. Even if the world was as simple now as it was then, it will take at least that long to research, plan, test, and begin development of anything useful. For crying out loud, we were in Iraq for 8 years and couldn’t build a secure road to the Goddamn Baghdad airport.

I'm glad you're actually asking this question instead of just assuming that they aren't safe. This article directly answers your question:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2...

Here's another one:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18849_6-s...

I answered your question above, however I'm going to go over the pros and cons for those who are reading this question hoping to hear about them. Here are the energy sources we have:

Hydroelectric: Hands down best method. Cheap, no CO2, no pollution. Only problem is that it isn't available everywhere.

Coal: Cheap but produces pollution and CO2 as well as solid waste in the form of soot/ash.

Gas: Fairly cheap but produces some pollution and CO2. Produces some soot which must be discarded as waste.

Solar and Wind: The most expensive, produce no CO2 or airborne pollutants. However they are intermittant and thus must be backed up by something else when they are not available. This is typically gas since these plants can respond quickly to changes in demand. Thus not entirely pollutant or CO2 free.

Now we get to nuclear. Nuclear is expensive to build, however once built it is cheap to operate because you get a LOT of energy from very little fuel. To give you an idea, each reactor at the plant I work at produces about 800MW or electricity (enough to power a city of about 500 000 people) and we only have to replace around 24 fuel bundles per day to keep a reactor going. A fuel bundle is about the size of a rolled up yoga mat so imagine 24 of those powering a city of 500 000 for a day.

The fact that we get so much power from so little fuel also means that we produce very little waste. The waste is highly radioactive though and this is a downside of nuclear.

As for safety, you mentioned the big 3 accidents: Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima. They were unacceptable and nothing will change that. However I think there is an impession among most people that like thousands of people were killed. Even in your question you believed there were already deaths at Fukushima. Let's look at these accidents in more detail

At Chernobyl there were 41 deaths direcly caused by the accident. Any deaths beyond this are difficult to estimate because most survivors were exposed to low levels of radiation. If they get cancer 30 years later, it's almost impossible to say whether it came from Chernobyl or not. It would be like trying to figure out whether the sunburn you got when you were 18 caused you to get skin cancer at like 40. For this reason, the number of estimated deaths varies from about 4000 (World Health Organization) to like 2 million (Greenpeace). Keep in mind these aren't immediate deaths, these are people exposed to low levels of radiation who may die later in life due to a slightly increased risk of cancer.

3 Mile Island had no deaths and no releases of radiation to the public. One of the reactors was damaged beyond repair. A disaster no doubt but as far as disasters go, a death toll of zero is pretty good.

Fukushima has no deaths directly related to radiation from the accident. Evacuations reduced the radiation dose to those in the surrounding area to very low levels thus it is almost impossible to estimate how many people will die earlier as a result of a small increase in radiation dose.

So there is the history of nuclear power and nuclear power accidents. Compare the number of deaths to the number of oil workers killed or coal miners and you'll see that nuclear plants are actually quite safe.

The Candu reactor can run on throium and even depleted uranium and spent fuel.

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2...

Unlike the LFTR it is a proven design.

And while lithium fluoride is already liquid when the reactor is operating, it is contained by material that aren't.

And lithium fluoride can boil because of the heat produced by radioactivity.

Lithium fluoride

Boiling Point: 1681°C (3057.8°F)

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsI...

Uranium oxide

Melting/Freezing Point: > 2868°C (5194°F)

http://www.2spi.com/catalog/msds/msds018...

And I would question claims that wind power out competes nuclear power. Both systems have high capital costs but low operating costs. But to compare capital cost, the backup for wind power must be considered. And the operating cost of wind is only low when the wind is blowing. The operating costs of the backups are high, and will be until batteries or the production of hydrogen can compete with natural gas as a backup.

Solar and Wind have the additional problem of massive land use and through that environmental damage. Wind turbines can generate roughly 1MW for every square mile, world energy requirements are 15TW - 15 million times this, requiring 15million square miles of land (1/4 of all land).

Yes. But this seems even a better idea.