"Right now solar and wind together provide about 1-2% of our electricity around the world."

But in the USA, wind now provides about 3%, and the number keeps rising as more turbines are installed. That doesn't mean wind is the complete answer.

"I am indeed talking about pyrometallurgical reprocessing techniques, on-site, which could burn up not just some of our spent fuel but every bit of it. Old nuclear weapons material, too."

If this can be done, it should be done, if for no other reason than to use up the spent fuel and old nuke material.

"the costs will be even lower than the lightwater reactors currently used in France, which produces its electricity from nuclear at a cost of about three cents per kWh (compared to our average cost to the consumer in the USA of ten cents)."

Check your numbers. The French pay more for residential electricity than Americans do, even those who buy from Con Ed.

I suspect you are comparing the cost to generate with the price charged to a residential customer. That's apples-and-oranges, because the residential price includes not only the cost to generate, but also the cost to distribute, the cost of connection, taxes, fees, and other charges. What matters to most people is the total cost when they get their bill. That's what you have to compare.

"Nor do I propose that breeders (of the variety I propose, the Integral Fast Reactor design developed at Argonne National Lab) be the complete answer either, though if we wanted them to they could be."

No single source will be a complete answer. That kind of thinking is what got us in the mess we're in now.

"Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and others in development such as wave generation, can all be part of the mix."

Not "can be". "Will be" and "should be". Add conservation and efficiency improvement too, such as geothermal (earth-source) heat pumps for heat and A/C rather than burning fossil fuel. If you don't use as much energy, you don't need to generate as much.

"What we're trying to achieve here, I think we agree, is environmentally benign energy sources, meaning an end to fossil fuel use."

That's a great long-term goal, but some things, like aircraft and ships, aren't going to be electrically powered any time soon.

"Fears of outdated nuclear power nothwithstanding, these new reactors can be built and operated safely."

That's a claim that will have to be demonstrated.

How close do you live to Three Mile Island? Where were you in 1979?

"I[t] most certainly can be done."

Another claim that will have to be demonstrated.

"The only uranium mining that would need to be done would be what will be needed to supply the current generation of light-water reactors (and the far fewer heavy water reactors) until they're decommissioned."

Which could happen at an accelerated rate since the new generation plants would make them unnecessary.

"At that point we could add uranium mining to the list of extraction industries that will disappear, along with coal, oil, and gas."

Those industries will still be needed for other uses, but not at the scale they now exist. Coal will still be needed to make steel, oil and gas for non-fuel petrochemicals, etc.

"As to what the French consumer pays, you are probably right there, my bad. I haven't lived in France for years."

It's important to compare apples to apples.

"If we did build the type of reactors I propose, though, we'd be able to come in under France's 3 cent rate, and if we did it with a nonprofit framework instead of via private utilities, we would definitely be able to undercut the dime per kWh we're paying now while easily maintaining the grid."

Again, a claim that has to be demonstrated. Some folks might read "nonprofit" as "government-run", too.

" maintaining the highest level of oversight and operational competence is critical....AREVA system, an umbrella organization that performs all the functions of the nuclear system, including mining oversight, enrichment, plant construction and operation, reprocessing, and disposal."

The cost of which must be reflected in the total price of electricity.

"And since we must envision a worldwide system, it's emphatic we create something like this on an international level."

I think we should first develop a USA system, just the way the French developed theirs. Except we don't have to start from scratch; we can adopt and adapt their system.

However:

I'm old enough to remember being told by experts that nuclear energy would be "too cheap to meter", and that we'd have more than we could ever use - all by 1980. The all-electric home was sold as the home of the future. I remember being told that long before the waste became a problem, there would be ways to easily deal with it.

I also remember being told that serious nuke-plant accidents were so improbable as to not be worth worrying about.

And it all seemed very reasonable, back when those promises were made. But it turned out there was a lot more involved than what was immediately apparent. So the new-generation nukes will have to prove themselves to a very skeptical public in order to gain wide acceptance.