All IPCC group reports are finalised via political negotiation except for one group. WG1 is the scientific group, all the others refer back to the WG1 report for factual information, the other groups argue about how to present those facts in their own working group(WG). In 25yrs of incredibly intense scrutiny, nobody has ever found a factual error in the final versions of a WG1 report. That really is a very robust outcome and a credit to the scientists involved.

Only nations that donate to the IPCC budget get a vote on the other reports, last I checked there were ~135 nations who together represent pretty much every political view in the rainbow, it takes a long time for them to agree. The IPCC budget is $5-6M/yr, nobody who actually works on the reports is paid a dime by the IPCC, all of the scientists involved DONATE their time. Their financial accounts are on their web site. Try finding the accounts for an anti-science no-think-tank such Senator Inhofe's barking dog - the heartland institute.

No, retard, the statistics cited include the known and forecast problems from fukushima.

Since the figures quoted are normally ones that have been out for a while (and there's nothing wrong with that) they don't include Fukushima - and a citation is definitely needed with your forecast claim with more recent things because there doesn't seem to be anything around that matches what you describe.
Did you make it up or can you point to something real?

What sort of echo chamber does this woman live in to think she's got a good record as a manager to run on?

The Enron book "The Smartest Guys in the Room" has got some good examples of people that far out of touch with reality and some broad hints as to how they ended up that way.
Goldman Sachs was another very weird 1300s Venetian Merchant Prince sort of environment that was probably even more fucked up.
IMHO she's thinking she was born to rule and everything else is just a detail or someone trying to get in the way of her destiny.

No matter what obscure VP

That's part of the problem right there. There should never be enough VPs that you can't put them in a small room.

Ah yes, another career politician who plays the "not a politician" card. Well if he hasn't been working as one for all this time kick the lazy leech out.

The bridge closing guy is still in the race? They really must be short on contenders since he's got the stink of a scandal to overcome before he can convince anyone that he's be a viable President.

Those empty buildings HP are a selling point to a certain ideology. A wrecking ball is the ideal for those "small government" folks who want a government too small to be able to catch those buying off government granted boons with bribes.

You mean just like in the early days of the USA when anyone who moved in could vote? Can't have that!

It's just like how their safety figures don't include the mines, processing or power station accidents that are not related to radiation exposure.
They have to play stupid political games because only governments will put up the money to build the things.

I suggest you look at the Harford web site to learn about turning waste back into fuel to get a bit more of an understanding of the situation. Steel pipes that have been exposed to enough neutrons to become radioactive themselves are not something you want near people for example - by volume the vast majority of nuclear waste is not fuel rods.
Oversimplifying the situation into "it can all be used as fuel" is counterproductive if you want to see any of it used as fuel.

I mean burning it and letting spread across the land is just fine. How about the coal ask ponds

You've already answered that the ash is not spread around the land with the mention of those ash ponds (dams really, since they are not small).

Alex Gabbard's stupid "but coal ash is nuclear waste too so why restrict nuclear waste" propaganda is still doing damage to minds. I suggest finding the numbers for the most radioactive coal on the planet and calculating how many hundreds of thousands of tons you need of it to get a banana dose to correct the mental damage.
Coal use has a lot of problems, many of which kill people, so I suggest focusing on what is real instead of failed 1970s nuclear propaganda from a guy mostly known by his NASCAR books.

The clueless nuke fanboys (as distinct from those that know their topic) like to pretend that was not an explosion but "deflagration" instead, so the events at Fukushima are not considered relevant to them in a discussion of nuclear energy safety.
So yes, they like to pretend that nuclear plants don't "blow up" and that the steam explosion that scattered stuff at Chenobyl and the explosion at Fukushima didn't really happen but were just fires or something.
So there's no point discussing these things with such folk that are divorced from reality.

We've been carefully growing for two full seasons, with some plants getting multiple cycles. No losses at all, other than one hailstorm, which we now prophylactically deal with by having the project under a bit of roof where it can still get the sun it needs, but hail can't hit it straight on. Not a perfect solution, but it's something. And it has worked.

I am convinced that the details matter.

Well, not really. The issue is that there are lots and lots of AC devices out there, so what you're doing is converting to a form that is in most common use. If you have surplus power that is free (solar as under discussion), there's no problem, resource-wise, in doing it just that way. Which makes it not very moronic at all. Kind of convenient, actually.

Considerations for a free, non-polluting resource have to be approached with an open mind. The range of consequences is different. They can be quite favorable.