First and foremost, the truth would help.  The nuclear experts seem to think that the public cannot handle the truth.  Considering how far off the rails nuclear has gone, it will be a long road back.

Truth with respect to waste management would be a good place to start.  There is a mess to clean up.  It is highly visible. Own it.   There is good technology to get it done, independent of Yucca Mountain.

Second, truth with respect to cost might yield good arguments.  SMRs may well reduce delivery time of new plants.  I have no problem with subsidies to support them if they can deliver what is needed in the appropriate markets.    I think nuclear needs to define its markets much better, instead of taking the “nothing but nuclear” approach. They may find that in places where the right conditions exist, nuclear is the right solution and a faster SMR delivery time would be worthwhile.   I hesitate to suggest what I think would be the ideal market for nuclear.  But, it is clearly not for everywhere and everyone, especially as the range of alternatives increases.   It sure sounds like South Carolina was not a great site selection: "South Carolina Spent $9 Billion to Dig a Hole in the Ground and Then Fill It Back In."

Actual GHG emissions reporting for all related activities such as mining, construction and decommissioning will help convince the public that they understand that there is no free lunch with respect to GHG emissions. This is not carbon free power.

Above all, stop lying to regulators. They hate that!  Try educating the public with truth about hazards and risks.  

Finally, get rid of at least one of their trade organizations and start over.  The World Nuclear Org. is just silly.   They provide too much fodder for skeptics like myself.

There is no “undoing” Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, Idaho Falls, Enrico Fermi , etc. But SMRs may represent great new technology.  So, at the moment, the  nuclear industry is in the process of self-destruction.  How often do real accomplishments related to nuclear appear in the pages of Energy Central, especially compared to wind, solar, PV, storage, etc?  We hear passionate defenses and pie in the sky prognostications.  But how often is there good, hard,  evidence based news about nuclear? 

You  seem to have inhaled all of the nonsense that the World Nuclear Institute spews.  No references, no data, no proof. Just nuclear industry claptrap. 

Again, I refer you to the World Nuclear Waste report. With data and references. I am under no illusion that you will read or understand any of it. That is just not in your playbook. But others may be interested, and not so lazy.

Can you please tell me one example of final disposal of high level nuclear waste in the world?  The fact is “No country has a final disposal site for nuclear waste in operation yet; Finland is the only country that is currently constructing a permanent repository. All  else is interim.” It is no longer  a technological problem. It is simply a matter of responsible business.

First rule of waste disposal:

«In order “to avoid imposing undue burdens on future generations” (Article 3 of the Joint Convention), one unifying concept, observed in nearly every country, is the polluter-pays-principle, which makes the operator liable for the costs of these activities.» Take a look at the right hand column of the table below.

Not one operator of a nuclear plant in the world complies with this principle for high level waste, let alone the less radioactive nuclear waste. We certainly apply it to oil spills, municipal waste, coal ash (so far), though far from the extent to which they should be responsible, especially with respect to air emissions.   Why are nuclear operators fully exempt (and, even worse, pretend otherwise)?  The US nuclear industry even refuses to commit to put all high level waste into casks.  San Onofre is the exception, not the rule. It should be the exception that proves the rule.

Do nuclear waste sites leak? There are many well documented cases. The poster child, of course, in Hanford.

We have discussed Vermont Yankee previously. You said they lied because the public would not understand the truth.  That is sick.

Then there is Indian Point. And Carlsbad storage facility. Colombia, SC nuclear fuel facility.  It is not difficult to find documentation on these leaks, some purportedly relatively harmless, others much more dangerous.

Who has been hurt by leaked radiation?

As a result of mining:

«In a 1983 report, the US Environmental Protection Agency estimated the lifetime excess lung cancer risk of residents living near a bare tailings pile of 80 hectares (0.8 km²) at two cases per hundred residents.”

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1983, “40 CFR Part 192 Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing Sites,” in: Federal Register Vol.48, No.196, Washington D.C. October 7 1983, pp. 45940. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1983-10-07/content-detail.html

As a result of operations:

The majority of annual air emissions (about 70 to 80 percent) are released during annual refueling. These increase the estimated doses to residents nearby by a factor of at least 20 compared to releases averaged over a year.

«The first recorded leukemia cluster near nuclear facilities in Europe was in 1984 in the UK near the Sellafield nuclear facility. In subsequent years, increased incidences of childhood leukemia occurred near other nuclear facilities in the UK, in France, and in Germany.»

Forman, D., Cook-Mozaffari, P., Darby, S., Davey, G., Stratton, I., Doll, R., and Pike, M. 1987, Cancer near nuclear installations, Nature, 329(6139), pp. 499-505. 

Gardner, M.J. 1991, Father’s occupational exposure to radiation and the raised level of childhood leukemia near the Sellafield nuclear plant, Environmental health perspectives, 94, pp.5-7. 

Pobel, D. and Viel, J.F. 1997, Case-control study of leukemia among young people near La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant: the environmental hypothesis revisited, Bmj, 314(7074), pp. 101.

Baker, P.J. and Hoel, D.G. 2007, Meta‐analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukaemia in proximity to nuclear facilities, European Journal of cancer care, 16(4), pp. 355-363. 

«In 2008, the German government published a major epidemiological study  called Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants. Another report found a 120 percent increase in leukemia and a 60 percent increase in all cancers among infants and children under five years old living within five kilometers of all German reactors»

Kaatsch, P., Spix, C., Schulze‐Rath, R., Schmiedel, S. and Blettner, M. 2008, Leukemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. International Journal of Cancer, 122(4), pp. 721-726

Spix, C., Schmiedel, S., Kaatsch, P., Schulze-Rath, R. and Blettner, M. 2008, Case–control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980–2003, European Journal of Cancer, 44(2), pp. 275-284. 

During reprocessing:

«The global collective dose, truncated at 100,000 years, resulting from the discharges of the La Hague reprocessing facility alone has been calculated to be 3,600 person sieverts per year. Continuing discharges at similar levels for the years of La Hague’s operational life until 2025 would cause over 3,000 additional cancer deaths globally, if the linear no-threshold theory of radiation is applied.»  We can debate the linear no-threshhold theory again if you like.  It involves dogs and plutonium. Very ugly results.

Smith, R., Bexon, A., Sihra, K., Simmonds, J.2007, “The calculation, presentation and use of collective doses for routine discharges,” In Proceedings of IRPA12: 12. Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association: Strengthening Radiation Protection Worldwide-Highlights, Global Perspective and Future Trends

Fire?

«Published by researchers from Princeton University and the Union of Concerned Scientists, the article argues that NRC inaction leaves the public at high risk from fires in spent-nuclear-fuel cooling pools at reactor sites. The pools -- water-filled basins that store and cool used radioactive fuel rods -- are so densely packed with nuclear waste that a fire could release enough radioactive material to contaminate an area twice the size of New Jersey»

This reference is an especially authoritative one.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/spent-fuel-fire-us-soil-could-dwarf-impact-fukushima

"At most U.S. nuclear plants, spent fuel is densely packed in pools, heightening the fire risk. NRC has estimated that a major fire at the spent fuel pool at the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania would displace an estimated 3.46 million people from 31,000 square kilometers of contaminated land. But Von Hippel and Schoeppner think that NRC has grossly underestimated the scale and societal costs of such a fire...The academies panel recommends that NRC “assess the risks and potential benefits of expedited transfer.” NRC spokesperson Scott Burnell in Washington, D.C., says that the commission’s technical staff “will take an in-depth look” at the issue and report to NRC commissioners later this year." The NRC certainly considered the risk significant enough to run the simulation.

You say there is no such thing as a core fire?

Short description of Chernobyl: “While a nuclear reactor can never explode like an atomic bomb, an explosion can still occur. All power plants are a potential site for an explosion, because the fuel used, whether it is coal, uranium, or natural gas, needs to be energy dense...Typically at a nuclear reactor, the type of explosion seen would be a steam explosion. A steam explosion could only occur if the reactor suffered a meltdown. A meltdown means that due to lack of coolant, or too much fission, the core becomes so hot that it melts. Due to the intense heat produced, water is turned to steam. Also, the fuel rods melt, turning them into a liquid. This allows the metal to react with the steam, causing an explosion.

The destruction at Chernobyl was caused by a steam explosion. Since the turbine feed valves were closed, the steam in the core had nowhere to go.... When the reactor core began to meltdown, liquid metal touched the steam, causing an explosion. The explosion caused the roof of the core to lift off, exposing the core to air. The air reacted with the graphite moderator in the core, resulting in the production of carbon monoxide. Since carbon monoxide is flammable, it caught fire due to the extreme heat in the core. The fire burned for days.»

https://science.fusion4freedom.com/why-a-nuclear-reactor-cannot-explode-like-an-atom-bomb/

By the way. Yes, metals burn. https://books.google.no/books?id=GTyxNeyaiuUC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=can+metal+burn&source=bl&ots=BtRkbxPvz9&sig=ACfU3U3HjhNYnNc-PxQAzbRRqyvBP4DlSA&hl=no&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPkqbFh7_nAhVN2aYKHeguDPo4HhDoATAHegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=can%20metal%20burn&f=false

Irrational fear? Your blinders cause irrational complacency.  I overestimated you. I thought you knew some chemistry.  And some history.

Thanks Gary.  A few points:

1) The nuclear industry claims, at least the World Nuclear Association  does, to take full responsibility for waste. 

«Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology that takes full responsibility for all its waste and fully costs this into the product.»

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx

From what you say, you realize that the World Nuclear Institute is wrong - and lies about it.

2) No doubt, successive governments have failed to deal with this problem effectively.  However, as you have seen from other posts, some people simply claim that it is not a problem.  It clearly is a very big problem. 

As you say, the consumer pays through their rates for the interim disposal (unless tne NRC finds some money to subsidize it.)   However, the costs for final disposal should also be accounted for in the costs of the electricity.  It obviously is in the interest of the industry to ignore those costs so that the cost of the electricity is a bit closer to competitive with other propositions. But the public is well aware that those costs are going to  be borne by consumers.  The Nuclear Industry  books simply look a lot better without the billions for final disposal.

So, the deceit by the industry is on many levels.   A. Deny it´s a problem B. Charge consumers for interim disposal. C. Claim the issue has been handled effectively, knowing that D. - the final disposal issue needs to be solved and paid for by someone else, ultimately by consumers. 

3) It baffles me that the nuclear industry takes such a passive role in this.  Nobody seems to even be interested in the drilling technology that can put high level waste in highly stable formations, and be able to retrieve it if necessary.  In spite of the finger pointing, lying, posturing, at some point someone will wake up to the reality that Yucca Mountain is no solution. And even if it could work, the politics of it will not.

4) I can only lead you to water.  I cannot make you drink. Please see at least one of the many studies cited above. These are from respected main stream journals. Yes, people in other workplaces get more radiation from either the radon in their  basement or from high atmosphere radiation to which they are exposed in airplanes, But these researchers know how to run controlled experiments. I´m sure you do. Take a look at their data. See if they do not contain highly suggestive data with respect to the hazards of working in and living near nuclear installations.

5) At its core, it is a matter of public trust. The nuclear industry and its apologists violate that trust constantly and consistently.  It has only itself to blame if the public does not believe what they say. 

There is an opportunity here to change all that prior to roll-out of SMRs. But it is going to be a tough road to hoe.