• Compact; a large amount of electrical power can be produced by a moderately sized station
• Low fuel costs
• Small number of accidents
• Normally does not produce any significant atmospheric pollutants
• Quantity of waste produced is small

• About 99.3% of natural uranium is in the form of U238 which cannot be used as a fuel in a simple nuclear power station. (Fast neutron reactors can use the U238, see below.)
• It is expensive, especially in capital costs, maintenance costs, and due to the long lead time in planning and construction; see footnote.
• There is a danger of radiation release
• While there are few accidents the consequences of some accidents may be catastrophic
• Decommissioning a nuclear power station at the end of its useful life is very difficult and expensive
• Safe long-term disposal of nuclear waste is difficult. (It must be kept away from the biosphere for several tens of thousands of years)
• The lead time in building a nuclear power station is around ten years
• A tempting target for terrorist attack
• War time - Nuclear power stations would produce a huge amount of radioactive contamination if bombed

• There is a great deal of uninformed emotional fear of nuclear power and nuclear radiation. Low levels of radiation are harmless; indeed, are probably beneficial; see An Introduction to Radiation Hormesis.
• There is insufficient U235 (0.7% of natural uranium) to provide a major part of the current world electrical consumption for a long period

• Compact; a large amount of electrical power can be produced by a moderately sized station
• Abundant fuel is available from existing stored 'waste' nuclear fuel. Conventional reactors only use about 1% of the potential power in uranium, the Fast reactor system could utilise most of the other 99%
• Should not produce any significant atmospheric pollutants
• Quantity of waste produced should be much smaller than for conventional nuclear
• Nuclear waste from a fast reactor system will need to be isolated from the biosphere for several hundred years, compared to the tens of thousands for conventional nuclear
• Thorium, which is about three times as abundant as uranium, can be used as fuel in a fast neutron reactor

• The system is not proven on a commercial scale
• Just as expensive as conventional nuclear? See footnote
• There is a danger of radiation release
• While the system seems to be sound, the consequences of accidents may be catastrophic
• Decommissioning a nuclear power station at the end of its useful life is very difficult and expensive
• The lead time in building a nuclear power station is around ten years, since this system is 'new' its lead time will be more like fifteen years
• A tempting target for terrorist attack
• War time - Nuclear power stations would produce a huge amount of radioactive contamination if bombed

• Since this system could make use of most of the energy available from uranium, unlike conventional nuclear, in theory a major part of the current world electrical consumption could be generated for a long period
• It is claimed that the transuranic elements recovered in the pyroprocessing are "unsuited for weapons" because they include several isotopes of plutonium, not just the plutonium 239 favoured for bomb making, some uranium 238, and fission products
• Bad news for uranium miners. If Fast nuclear takes over from conventional then no uranium need be mined for several hundred years; the waste of the old power stations becomes the fuel for the new.

"Goldberg and Oosterhuis suggest direct public subsidies (for the nuclear power industry) amount to $115 billion and indirect subsidies to $145 billion in the US alone, while annual subsidies in the UK equal US$543 million, and in Germany some US$845 million."