My take on your position is that you are irrationally anti-nuclear to the point that you prefer the world continuing to burn hydrocarbons instead. How about we get rid of those first, then worry about the problems with nuclear after, instead of making the transition even harder than it will already be? Proliferation is a fact regardless what the big players do at this point. 70 years on, that genie is long out of the bottle and won't be going back in. When a state as paranoid and unstable as North Korea already has nukes, it seems moot to argue about such risks.

As I posted earlier, using some of the tax funds already collected for Yucca or wherever for research into reprocessing etc. could help. Your mind seems made up that it won't though, fine. Nothing my ignorant self says will make a difference to you.

I'm not a pro, just a citizen interested in having the lights stay on for my children, and not forcing them to live in a world where the ecosystem has been compromised by rapid temperature rise and ocean acidification. Those seem far worse prospects than a hundred Fukushima-style meltdowns.

I don't have time to read your reference now, but I will. Last post beating this dead horse of a thread.

You are so passionate in decrying the whole nuclear industry that either unintentionally, or by design, you are perpetuating several far worse by virtually any standard. Excepting the "Oh no! Radiation is invisible so it scares me" standard. Show me the numbers proving solar and other RE sources alone can power worldwide demand 24*7, (for bonus points, with technology from the 60s and 70s like you seem to be requiring of nuclear). What is the cost per KWh? Where do all the raw materials come from? What are the environmental costs of that mining, manufacturing, and disposal? How much land is used and what other functions are thereby displaced? What wildlife habitats are disrupted? Show us the math, or shut up. I'll even go first.

So there is an interesting question. Why are Gen I reactors still operating? I don't know anyone who still drives a 1960-era car as their primary transportation. Technology marches on. Or it would if NRC regulation hadn't ossified nuclear into what it is. R&D spending on nuclear in the past 40 years is a bad joke. Much like space policy, every Congress and President seems to prioritize canceling whatever projects their predecessors started (except for projects that involve killing some group or other of brown people).

MSRE was forced to shut down without a proper process; the bills just stopped getting paid. Exactly why should we be all worked up over a $130M clean up cost for a stupid decision in 1970 anyway? The cost doesn't seem that outlandish for your basic government program –about $5M to clean it up, and $125M for hookers and blow for the principals involved.

And I'm quite certain that no technology has advanced at all since that time that would increase the chances for success.

One thing remains constant though. People with agendas that look more like religion than science and technology. I don't give a damn how we obtain our non-hydrocarbon energy going forward, but your monomaniacal advocacy and seeming irrational hatred of nuclear reminds me of the scare ads placed against nuclear power in the 70s that turned out to have been paid for by the fossil fuel industry.

I believe there was a recent court order that bars the US government from continuing to collect the tax in question from nuclear operators. Too lazy to include a citation right now.

Thank you. Wish I had mod points today.

Oh and by the way, Some people seem to disagree with you. Try harder next time. A trip to Wikipedia ought not be enough for my really really ignorant self to refute you.

I'll omit the usual third grade name calling, for now. But bring that on, if that's all you've got.

Sure, it's called "Afghanistan".

Uranium in coal ash follows the path of the coal, from mining site, via transportation, to the furnaces where it is burned, up the chimney and into the environment, where due to high atomic mass, it will tend to fall in some teardrop area downwind. Those areas obviously get more, though probably not a cause in and of themselves for grave concern. At least not compared to coal's health and environmental damages from GHGs, mercury, particulates, slurry pond leaks, etc.

Natural vs. "unnatural" isotopes is a false dichotomy. What matters is half-life, bioaccumulation and concentration. If the money wasted on the Yucca Mountain fiasco had been spent on reprocessing technology instead, it's quite possible the site would not have been needed to begin with. At least not in the macro-form.

We should store it all up Harry Reid's ass. Plenty of room there for all the waste ever generated.

This independent correctly identifies you as an asshat, and a[n anonymous] coward.

I vote more Dem than Repub these days, but I'm pretty sure I'd vote for Michelle effing Bachman over Reid.

Because neither the ignorant public nor the Hyper-ADHD media can be bothered to use and understand truly descriptive terms for any phenomenon more complex than, e.g., ordering a pizza.

Hence my last paragraph, stating "There's no earthly reason Gen I plants should still be in operation."

Nuclear power has significant risks. So does every other power source we have identified to this point. Those risks range from radioisotope pollution (nuclear, coal ash), to greenhouse gases and particulates (burning hydrocarbons), massive flooding (hydro), to risks of grid instability (solar, wind), technology availability risks (carbon capture, power storage, fusion), etc.

We can argue about the relative merits until doomsday, but my considered opinion is that of the risks involved, greenhouse gas emissions are by far the greatest and need to be addressed with the according urgency. I believe we need everything else to have a fighting chance at success in this.

You misspelled "intermittently" there.