Why Did The Last Paragraph Discredit Nuclear Energy As A Whole?

This paper is supposed to advocate nuclear energy and its benefits so why did the last paragraph discredit nuclear energy as a whole? The reason is that while past ideas are flawed beyond repair, the new ideas in nuclear research are the future. Ideas such as small underground fission reactors, nuclear fusion, and thorium salts are tremendous concepts still in development.

What if there was the possibility that a nuclear reactor could be built in a factory and stored underground? What if said nuclear reactor used uranium and plutonium found in nuclear weapons, and is between 45-50% efficient? Nineteen-year old nuclear physicist Taylor Wilson, actually proposed such a device. The device can be stored underground for thirty years without needing refueling thus eliminating the risk of having out in the open. The small reactor can also generate 50 to 100 Megawatts which is enough energy to power close to 100,000 homes. One of the main differences between the smaller reactor and present day reactors is the difference in

Thorium is a common radioactive element that can be used as nuclear fuel. Little is known about thorium except that it can be used as a salt, and it is four times more common than uranium (“Sorensen, Thorium, an alternative nuclear fuel”). Kirk Sorensen, states that the United States has over 32 metric tons of thorium and that it reduces nuclear waste tenfold (“Thorium, an alternative nuclear fuel”). The most common idea of how to use thorium is as a replacement for uranium. As established British editor, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard describes thorium “It promises to be safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper than uranium. It is much harder to use in nuclear weapons, and therefore limits the proliferation risk” (“Chinese going for broke”). Little is known about mysterious element 90, and that is perhaps its best