I don't find the temperature of this discussion to be particularly heated, and cannot agree that my comments about the likely neoliberal "liberation" of free enterprise to meet the need for new nukes are somehow insulting, improper, or out of bounds. Really.
My main point in challenging the feasibility of new nukes under capitalism is my belief that c. in the US and France certainly, but also in Europe more generally, may no longer have the ability to summon up resources of social solidarity to meet crises at the level necessary to deploy new technology decisively, effectively, and fast enough to meet the swiftly advancing "deadline" of climate change. Nothing in this exchange so far has convinced me that this is not so, and in fact you seem to agree with me about much of this.
I would like to believe that China has solved or could solve all these problems, but remain unconvinced. Certainly, now that they seem to have thrown their lot in decisively with the Russian Empire, I would hesitate to trust their good intentions--or their long-term competence-- any more than I trust those of the US Republican Party or indeed the US political duopoly as a whole--or the possibly tottering fascist government of the Russian Federation.
At this point in the discussion, Hari Kumar and John Reimann have raised points of concern regarding radiation safety that I would like to see directly answered, as has Joseph Green.
I would also like to see the discussion broadened to include types of fission reactors other than the light-water variety. I am familiar--and then only glancingly so--with the molten-salt reactor concept, which AFAIK need not necessarily operate using thorium. I understand there are many others--but this is an area where the salesmen surge forth clamoring and drown the voices of reason, which is one of my reasons for believing that the very real issues can only be resolved under circumstances where the profit motive plays no role. What could that be but socialism?