It is, but it's safer, since it's a fuel salt loop that has radioactive fuel mixed in, which is too dilute to melt down. It powers a second, independent molten salt loop that goes to a water boiler elsewhere in the system. This has a variety of benefits, and also depends on the tech. But one, it stops meltdowns. And two, if the salt loop or boilers fail, it doesn't release superheated, radioactive steam since the boiler is elsewhere in the complex.

Some can also recycle radioactive fuel that is already spent too.

Molten salt technology also has other benefits, nuclear energy aside. In solar towers with molten salt technology, it boils salts which then power a steam turbine. The salts are fucking hot, and stay hot enough to boil water for 12 hours after the sun has stopped shining. In the morning, some fuel is used to heat up the salts in prep for the sunlight. So, while it does use a bit of carbon, it provides reliable baseload energy that can serve the grid uninterrupted at night/during storms :)

Can't get the pic to link right. Here's a solar tower

Imo it should be the other way around. Nuclear plants should be government run.

Providing power to the US is the government's responsibility in the same way that governments funding maintenance of public roads, paying for teachers, and paying for firefighters doesn't always generate money yet is subsidized or wholly paid for by a government entity. The fact that the government doesn't have to fully pay for the nuclear plant (because its offset by the money the plant makes) makes it less that the government has to spend. If anything, I'd like the government to completely take over nuclear plants so that there's less profits for private entities. Yes nuclear is more expensive than renewables, but an already existing nuclear plant is cheaper than a new one, which is way better than fossil fuels, the real enemy. Not to mention, in how long will renewable take to make up the almost 10% of energy that the plant supplies to California? Instantly? no. It takes time, and until that time, we need all the energy generation we can get, ESPECIALLY if its not a fossil fuel based one. Radioactive waste? Definitely a problem, in a couple hundred years. Right now, all the radioactive waste the US has ever made would fill up a football field, 10 yards deep. Not really a high priority problem especially compared to the risk that global warming risks.

All in all, it feels like we shouldn't let the search for a perfect solution, impede temporary good enough solutions.

this on its own, without government subsidies. When will the industry find some way to insure itself without the US government’s help? Oh, and when will become cheaper than renewables?

If you want to talk about subsidies, let's talk about how renewables (and even fossil fuels) get MORE subsidies than nuclear energy. Tell us, why is it okay for renewables to get so much subsidies but it's wrong when nuclear gets a fraction of that? Oh and by the way, nuclear doesn't need subsidies to compete with renewables. Wanna know how I know? Because every nuclear plant that was shutdown in the US was replaced by fossil gas, NOT renewables. Fossil fuels get the biggest subsidy which is not having to pay the health consequences of pollution and the climate consequences. But sure, let's waste time about renewables this and nuclear that while fossil fuel keep fucking us up the ass instead of just using renewables and nuclear where each make sense to decarbonize. I don't care how many good intentions you might have, your narrative holds back the energy transition, it doesn't help it in the least bit, especially when we are talking about nuclear plants that are ALREADY BUILT and operating. What do you want? have diablo canyon replaced with more fossil gas just like indian point and san onofre? Because that's what happened and that's what is going to happen again. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

I feel like I watched a YouTube video about some guy who was working on commercializing personal home thorium power plants because they were totally safe but produced more power than you would ever need?

We should be moving in that direction, just security wise.

Five years of production of a guaranteed ten percent of your power already being used while you transfer energy grid tech is pretty significant and a much simpler hurdle than reducing ten percent of your power across the grid.

Given that the average Californian household uses around 7200kWh a year a single facility providing 9% of the state's energy needs or 2.89 million homes isn't that bad...

For a 1.2 billion dollars investment, that is about 415 dollars per household to keep it running for 5 years more.

Not saying that new nuclear generators are the best way since we have better alternatives, but you can't knock the benefits that nuclear energy has given us. If we were to reduce energy use by 10% today wouldn't we want to burn that much less natural gas and that little share of coal first if we cared about health impact? This buys us more time to have renewables displace the most harmful of generation methods.

Last operating nuclear power plant.

Which means this one plant provies 9.3% of the state's power generation. It's entirely reasonable to think that cutting that power generation without having other sources to replace it with would be a "bad idea," especially considering how Enron royally fucked California by playing games with power.