Just a reminder: Thanks to Ronald Reagan we the taxpayers own commercial spent nuclear fuel

[jpak]

Yup - the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was passed by the ASSHOLE '80's GOP Congress and signed by Reagan to privatize the profits of nuclear power and socialize the financial liabilities of disposing spent fuel.

The Nuclear Waste Fund (a 1 mil/kwh tax on nuclear electricity) will ultimately produce $28 billion dollars.

The last cost estimate for the now defunct spent fuel depository at Yucca Mountain NV was $100+ billion.

WHO PICKS UP THE TAB FOR THE REST OF THE COST????














we do!

Thank you Ronald Reagan and the GOP for killing the infant solar energy industry in the early 80's

AND

giving us the gift that keeps on taking and taking and taking....

spent nuclear fuel.

:puke:

[Indydem]

1. So you want...

the private corporations in charge of the long term storage and disposal of that fuel?

Corporations who don't give a shit about the consequences of their actions, and who could just go bankrupt after dumping that fuel in a river or on a playground?

I'm no fan of ronnie raygun, but think what you are saying before being so quick to bitch about the liabilities of securing the most toxic substance known to man.

[jpak]

2. If they can't be trusted to get rid of it - they shouldn't be allowed to make it

and they should be FORCED to pay the full cost and FINED & JAILED if they don't do it right.

yup

[bananas]

6. It's irresponsible to keep making this stuff and doubly irresponsible to build new reactors.

[joshcryer]

10. Then I suggest you contact your local politician.

You may want to tell them, btw, that they should support export controls to all countries that are building nuclear reactors.

[jpak]

12. They should - and if they had, India and Pakistan would never have developed nuclear weapons

yup

and we'll forget that Iranian uranium enrichment thingy - won't we

yup
yup
yup

[joshcryer]

13. Anti-Iran posts here on DU.

Yup.

[jpak]

15. only racists and rapists oppose nuclear power and nuclear proliferation

it's true - I read it here on DU

yup

[kristopher]

16. You owe me a keyboard cleanup...

Coffee sprayed everywhere when I read that one...

:toast:

[jpak]

18. Mission Accomplished

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[joshcryer]

14. Protectionism worked out grand for North Korea.

[jpak]

17. The North Korean Yongbyon plutonium bomb reactor was a nuclear POWER plant - it produced electricity

there can be a no more compelling or irrefutable connection between nuclear power AND nuclear weapons than that thingy.

nope

:rofl:

[Statistical]

20. No it wasn't. It was a 25MW reasearch reactor.

North Korea has never produced any electrical power from nuclear energy.
They have however built two nuclear devices.

Yup we should stop building reactors in the US because that might make North Korea get a bomb.

[jpak]

22. it was a 5 MW(e) power reactor dear leader - wrong again

yup

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/yongbyon-5.htm

Atoms for Peace

not

[Statistical]

23. It never produced electrical power.

It doesn't even have a turbine. :rofl:
There are no transmission lines linking it to the grid.

Are you sure you understand how nuclear energy works?

[jpak]

25. Dear Leader and the IAEA says it was a peaceful(not) 5 MW(e) nuclear POWER plant

and everyone agrees with that except you

the sham is obvious to all

nuclear power = nuclear weapons

yup

[Statistical]

26. No they state it is a research reactor.

It never produced any electrical energy.

None of the links you provided supports the false claim you made.

North Korea has NO nuclear energy program.
To date they have produced 0 kWh of electricity from nuclear energy.
However they do have at least 2 nuclear devices.

26 other countries however have nuclear energy programs many have had them for 30-40 years and have no nuclear weapons.

[jpak]

28. No its a 5 MW(e) research reactor - clue: the "e" is for electricity

spin like a top dear leader

yup

[bananas]

31. MIT is WRONG!!! Proliferation has NOTHING to do with nuclear energy!!!!

Every delusional pro-nuke KNOWS that proliferation has nothing to do with nuclear energy!
Posts about proliferation do NOT belong in the EE forum because MIT is WRONG!!!!
If you ever see a post about proliferation in the EE forum, ALERT THE MODERATORS!!!!

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:
...
Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks. pg. ix

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=243977&mesg_id=243977

[Statistical]

19. Of course US, Israel, France, UK, Russia, (and Iran) built nuclear weapons without nuclear power.

Also lets not forget about the two Koreas.

South Korea - large and growing nuclear energy program and no nuclear weapons.
North Korea - no nuclear energy program, sanctions and detonated 2 nuclear devices.

Yup building more reactors especially in existing nuclear nations (Finland, France, Sweden, Italy, Spain, US, Russia, Canada, Japan, Korea, India) will certainly lead to more bombs.

[jpak]

21. the US nuclear reactor fuel cycle IS the US nuclear weapons complex and the rest

built or will build their fucking nuclear weapons of mass destruction using pieces parts of the "peaceful" :puke: nuclear fuel cycle.

yup

no revisionist history for you

nope

[Statistical]

24. Actually no.

While that was the original plan by 1960s the DOE discovered that specific purpose plutonium piles optimized for quick fuel changes were far more cost effective to produce weapons grade material.

Reprocessing reactor fuel to extra plutonium and them seperate weapons grade plutonium to high enough concentration proved to be far too complex, costly, and difficult considering reactors are spread out of thousands of square miles.

The hanford complex was built to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Not a single US nuclear warhead was produced from commercial power reactors.
The 9 weapons maerial reactors (reactor B through N) at Hanford site supplied more plutonium that the US could use.

Even though we build 20,000? 50,000? (not sure how many) bombs there was (and still is) metric tons of weapons grade plutonium left. Eventually that will be turned in MOX fuel.

[jpak]

27. actually yes and you know it - India subverted CANDU and Pakistan used PUREX

and US commercial reactors produce tritium for thermonuclear warheads - today

they put the H in H-bombs

yup

and the same uranium enrichment plants that produced the weapons grade uranium for Little Boy :nuke: enriched uranium for US commercial power reactors

yup

yup

nuclear power sucks ass

yup!

[Statistical]

29. Nuclear power does kick ass. Glad you are starting to accept that.

You should because we will be building a dozen reactors over next decade and the world will build a hundred more.

[jpak]

30. Yes, kickass nuclear power technology allowed India and Pakistan to develop kickass nuclear weapons

and one day they wil used them to kick each other's asses

millions dead

:nuke:

yup

[Nihil]

33. Woohoo ... population reduction WIN!

That's even quicker than just letting them choke to death on coal fumes
and less cruel than bludgeoning them to death with Mark Z Jacobsen quotes!

:thumbsup:

[Nihil]

32. I could support that ...

... if and only if the same rules were applied to the fossil fuel industry.

Get working on it and we might both be happy.

[NNadir]

3. Good. It's an extremely valuable resource and contains more energy than the toxic solar industry

has been able to produce in 50 years of dangerous fossil fuel apologetics and greenwashing.

[jpak]

4. What horseshit, the only commercial reprocessing plant to operate in the US went fucking bankrupt

and taxpayers are going to have to pay $10 billion to clean it up - and there is at least one plume of rad waste from that plant snaking its way to the Great Lakes watershed.

on edit - and, oh yeah, it only produced $20 million dollars worth of reprocessed plutonium (which was also purchased by taxpayers).

Oh yeah - if it was so fucking valuable, why was the nuclear industry so eager to get rid of it?

...and why are nuclear plant operators now SUING taxpayers for $56 billion to dispose of their spent fuel?

"valuable" spent fuel = ambien-induced delusion!

yup!

:rofl:

[NNadir]

8. Any idea what the "clean up" to nuclear standards of your coal pals processing plants

would cost?

How about the clean up of your pal Amory Lovins' paymaster's rig blown out in the Gulf this past week?

Couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuel clean-ups? Have no desire to stamp out dangerous fossil fuels?

Well, nearly a decade of your "solar will save us" rhetoric and selective attention has stripped any claim to the contrary from a fragment of believability.

The fact is that Japan, France, India, and China don't give a rat's ass what a bunch of uneducated anti-science giggly boys think.

They are all committed to reprocessing.

Maybe they don't get all their information from dumb guys web sites and blog postings.

There are no dangerous fossil fuel wastes, dumping grounds, processing plants that could be made to meet nuclear standards for 100 trillion dollars.

Despite the ravings of uneducated anti-science giggly boys, nuclear power need not be perfect nor free to be better than all the things you don't care about.

It only needs to be better than everything else, which, happily it is.

Have a nice selective attention BP greenwashing immoral day.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

11. Any idea what the "clean up" to nuclear standards of your coal pals processing plants

would cost?

How about the clean up of your pal Amory Lovins' paymaster's rig blown out in the Gulf this past week?

Couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuel clean-ups? Have no desire to stamp out dangerous fossil fuels?

Well, nearly a decade of your "solar will save us" rhetoric and selective attention has stripped any claim to the contrary from a fragment of believability.

The fact is that Japan, France, India, and China don't give a rat's ass what a bunch of uneducated anti-science giggly boys think.

They are all committed to reprocessing.

Maybe they don't get all their information from dumb guys web sites and blog postings.

There are no dangerous fossil fuel wastes, dumping grounds, processing plants that could be made to meet nuclear standards for 100 trillion dollars.

Despite the ravings of uneducated anti-science giggly boys, nuclear power need not be perfect nor free to be better than all the things you don't care about.

It only needs to be better than everything else, which, happily it is.

Have a nice selective attention BP greenwashing immoral day.

[havocmom]

5. Oh, there you are

:rofl:

[FBaggins]

7. The GOP congress?

We had almost as large a majority in the House in 1982 as we have now.

And didn't it pass overwhelmingly?