Who Killed the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)?

[Maslo55]

117. Factual arguments ahead

"an incredibly risky, costly and totally unnecessary"

1. Safety: Nuclear power has the least amount of deaths caused per TWh of energy it produces, from all energy sources. So much for it being dangerous.
Deaths per TWh by energy source: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
Not even talking about the fact that comparing 40 year old and soviet reactors with modern ones is intellectualy dishonest at best, but even if we ignore it, still its the most safe source as demonstrated above.

2. Cost: Except fossil energy, nuclear has the lowest cost per TWh of energy it produces (DoE numbers). Despite receiving far lower subsidies per TWh than alternative sources. So much for it being costly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

3. Every additional tonne of CO2 released into the air caused by opposition to nuclear energy (as has been demonstrated recently in germany - nuclear phaseout already resulted in increase in fossil energy use, and more fossil expansion is planned - more warming) puts us closer to the risk of runaway GW. No CO2-free source is "unnecessary" in such situation, we need everything we can do to lower emissions.

"with no realistic plan for waste fuel storage"

4. Storage is not the solution as I have said. Burning it is - turning liability into an asset, and its perfectly viable:
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12/05/a-waste-of-waste/

So much for your arguments. No stand up to factual scrutiny, just generic anti-nuclear propaganda with no hard numbers to back it up.