The stoppage of reprocessing fuel, meaning making an enriched plutonium fuel rod, occurred because of numerous problems with the process, and even when it worked, it cost 10 times more than storage.Lie: No one is talking about storing spent fuel where it can get into groundwater
So the "new nuke" without "reprocessed MOX fuel" will be 200% to 300% increase in rates in order to "fight carbon". With MOX will it be 500%? Who knows, those plutonium projects run 300% to 2000% over budget on average.
Are you willing to triple your bill to "fight carbon" aka plant food?
Kewaunee was closed on economic reasons, that plant only cost the buyer $180M. The new nuke (example is Vogtle in Georgia) is going to cost, they say $18 Billion, that is 100 times more, 18,000 Million. For a device to boil water.
Can those economics even pass a straight face test?
Actually in Canada, they have already approved a plan to store nuclear waste on a Peninsula that juts into Lake Huron. They say it will be just low level waste, but the reality is that 1 quart of that low level waste is enough to contaminate 1 Billion chickens to being too hot.
The "new nuke" has waste that has half life of "only" 300 years. Wow, much better than 24,000 years for the old nuke.
Does anyone with a brain want to saddle your grandkids with the cost of maintaining that storage...for 10 half lives, until it halflives away and is then only a hazardous heavy metal?
If you can say yes to that question, I would have to ask if you are a sociopath.
Lie: With the "New Nuke" the primary byproducts are only dangerous for 300 years.
First, lets dispense with the 300 year lie. Its a 300 year half-life, so about half of it goes away in 300 years, at 600 years, 25% of the waste is still around. So it takes 3000 years for pretty much all the radiation to go away, leaving just the heavy metal hazardous waste.
Second: For us and our next 7 generations, 300 is the same as 1000 years, or 24000 years because for us "It IS Forever". Shame on the nukist.