Oh yeah? Just ask this guy. He was absolutely arrested for not consenting to a search by lying cops. And as shown in the video, the prosecutor states that if he wasn't lucky to have had a clear recording they would have no qualms about and would have gotten away with lying to convict him. The linked video is full of all sorts of blatant gestapo corruption on the part of the cops AND the court (at one point the judge called the sheriff to arrest him for not letting the prosecutor see exculpatory evidence, when sheriff arrived he simply told the judge he couldn't arrest him for that).

Thorium is not fuel, it is only fertile material which can be turned into Uranium in a breeder reactor (which requires high-enriched uranium or plutonium to operate). Thorium has the same properties as Uranium in terms of risk of melting down. Making a reactor melt-down-proof is a matter of reactor and coolant type, not fuel. Same goes for nature of spent fuel/radioactive waste. The only real advantage of using thorium as a breeder material instead of natural uranium is that it is more common and cheaper.

EBR-II was a 60 MW sodium cooled fast breeder reactor with on-site reprocessing that successfully operated from 1965 until 1994 when the program was cancelled by Bill Clinton.

There's a simpler way of looking at the electric car conundrum. Of all the energy used in the industrialized world, about half is used for transportation in the form of oil. In order to replace all cars with electrics, we would have to literally double all electric generation and transmission capability. No small undertaking.

Actually that is not true either. The plants were in fact originally designed to load follow and were only later adapted to constant full power operation based on economic factors. It is not hard at all to engineer the plants to load follow. And xenon poisoning has nothing to do with it, the primary challenge is in axial offset control which becomes more difficult later in the cycle, but only because the cycles are optimized to run at constant full power with maximum fuel loading. It would only require modest adjustments typical of cycle-to-cycle operational changes to design to load follow. IAANE.

Everyone one of your points is entirely false.

1) No. Wind and solar vary with clouds and wind patterns and have no correlation to usage patterns. Renewables do not cut into anyone's profits, only natural gas does that with massive oversupply with lack of storage/transmission capability. In fact, renewables tend to be big profit cash cows for industries because of government subsidies that pay for them to build them, even when and where they don't work, and then they get to write off the losses from taxes. Why do you think there are so many idle wind power farms all over the country?

2) Renewables are also highly centralized in that they are totally dependent on federal government subsidies and all the cronyism and corruption that comes along with it. The rest of point two I won't even go into as it is just loony bullshit.

3) What do you think causes the cost overruns? Environmentalist protests and lawsuits. Nice catch 22 there.

Wrong. Nuclear power can load follow (ramp up and down rapidly to meet instantaneous demand) perfectly fine. They just typically do not because they are large baseload plants and there is no reason to run them anything lower than 100% when you need fossil fuel plants to make up the difference. IAANE.

Applying this analogy to AGW, your model predicts the outcome of 15 coin tosses will be 15 heads +/- 15 tails.

The most egregious example of administrator disconnect, as uncovered by Feynman, was the notion that the O-rings had a safety factor of 3 because they were on burned through 1/3 of the way on previous launches:

Instead of being very concerned that variations of poorly understood conditions might reasonably create a deeper erosion this time, it was asserted, there was "a safety factor of three." This is a strange use of the engineer's term ,"safety factor." If a bridge is built to withstand a certain load without the beams permanently deforming, cracking, or breaking, it may be designed for the materials used to actually stand up under three times the load. This "safety factor" is to allow for uncertain excesses of load, or unknown extra loads, or weaknesses in the material that might have unexpected flaws, etc. If now the expected load comes on to the new bridge and a crack appears in a beam, this is a failure of the design. There was no safety factor at all; even though the bridge did not actually collapse because the crack went only one-third of the way through the beam. The O-rings of the Solid Rocket Boosters were not designed to erode. Erosion was a clue that something was wrong. Erosion was not something from which safety can be inferred.

"I was told by voting section management that cases are not going to be brought against black defendants on [behalf] of white victims."

--J. Christian Adams, US Department of Justice under Eric Holder (link)

The issue is not the average energy price across the country. The problem is local, where natural gas is produced in such abundance but cannot be stored or transported, they practically give it away, which nuclear (nor coal or any other generation method aside from hydro) can compete with.

Oops forgot to clarify, the decays are beta decay, where a neutron in the nucleus turns into a proton and ejects an electron and antineutrino.

After U-238 absorbs a neutron it becomes U-239, which decays (half life = 23 m) to Np-239, which decays (half life = 2 d) again to Pu-239.

If we built fast reactors, we would have enough fuel, in the form of depleted uranium sitting around idle in barrels at enrichment plants, to supply the entire planet's energy for about 1000 years.

The small increase in nuclear fuel price due to the ending of this program is insignificant. Fuel price is only a small cost of nuclear power, and enrichment cost only a fraction of that. The real problem for nuclear power is the bottoming out of energy prices due to the huge oversupply of natural gas from fracking. The latter being responsible for the closing of two power plants this year.