Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Then they want us to convert to electric autos...
Using nuclear power plants will eliminate even more mercury emissions.

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear power
plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.

As empty and bogus an argument by the anti-nuke propagandists as there
is. Development of nuclear weapons by a "rogue state" in no way depends
on the presence of civilian nuclear power plants.


No, it doesn't depend on civilian facilities. However, as you are now well
aware, fuel from civilian plants can (and has been) turned into fuel
suitable for nuclear weapons. The presence of a "legal" civilian facility
eliminates the need to shop around for a fuel source.

Please don't continue to dispute these facts. You are about to look silly.

Just to mention it in passing, the original suggestion of the use of
nukes for electricity was in the US. I would doubt that one or two more
legal civilian facilities within those borders woudl have a big impact
on proliferation. The original discussion was supposed to be about the
US using more nuclear power.

Yep, cheap, clean, safe, non polluting, non greenhouse gas releasing
nuclear power - power that could be used to replace a good deal of our
current oil use and bring us a lot closer to energy self sufficiency.
With the additional side benefit of eliminating all the daily pollution
from coal and nat gas fired power plants *now*, instead of 30 years from
now when we might have some of the renewable energy sources improved
enough to make a real impact.