The lie of the "new nuclear" being safe

fireofenergy=said on a Huffpost blog

Reactors based on water for cooling is just plain ego in the face of opposites. Water will turn to hydrogen, explode and disperse toxic and radioactiv

­e elements for many miles. That's a worst case. Multiply that by some 450 plants around the world... Somethings bound to happen (and so it did in Japan).

Now, cool a reactor with a NON pressurize­d substance, and nothing will be dispersed in any explosive manner. So what then is the worst case? Multiply that by, say, 10,000 (needed to displace ALL other sources). What would happen. Nothing because reactors such as LFTR can't meltdown and thus can't expel it's toxic and radioactiv­e mix. As long as the "room" was built strong enough to withstand a major Earthquake (and direct attack), no leakage into ground water, either! So the only "problems" would be periodic parts replacemen­ts (which would be more frequent than the LWR's due to higher temps).
Since LFTR is like 200 times more efficient, the waste issue would be much easier to deal with.
The future has been passed up by the need to make money off of inefficien­cy. That, and a lack of understand­ing leading to fear, are the ONLY problems with LFTR and its kind.

Uh yeah, so non combine highly corrosive salts, with highly radioactive substances, and high temperatures, and high pressures, and then have them built by the lowest bidder that has also accomplished regulatory capture. Now also make sure that at least 1,000,000 various parts are needed to make the thing work. Now make sure that no terrorist could damage it. Now protect the used fuel products for 100,000 years.

OK, great, no problem looks like your precious little science is just perfect.

UNLESS you would prefer clean safe solar electric, for 2.9 cent per kWH and with no evacuation zone!

Here is the proof. Real data

http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/2012/01/solar-electric-photovoltaic-cost-per.html