“Global subsidies for oil, gas, and coal amounted to $409 billion in 2010 — compared with $60 billion for renewable energy that year.” (Add another 40-60 Billion For nuclear corporate welfare in the US alone). 

“Cutting those subsidies would be economically efficient, reduce overall energy consumption, and level the playing field with renewable power. The International Energy Agency suggests that removing fossil fuel subsidies would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 2.6 gigatonnes a year by 2035. That’s half of what’s required to prevent the planet’s average temperature from increasing by two degrees centigrade or more per year.”

Not only does the nuclear industry universally transfer all of the risk and cost of cleanups, accidents and ‘decommissioning’ to taxpayers, they universally also keep all of the profits they make, plus they demand taxpayer subsidies just to keep operating. 

The nuclear waste from this and every other nuclear power plant must be guarded for at least another 1 MILLION to BILLIONS of years, even AFTER IT IS SHUT DOWN PERMANENTLY, contrary to the claims of nuclear apologists, who say that nuclear waste issues are not worth talking about.

Is it worth the cost of heating water for 30 years, to pay someone to guard this deadly waste for 1 MILLION years? 

Wouldn’t you agree that heating water for 30 years, and then having to guard both the uranium tailing piles and the waste fuel from the power plant, recycling and concentrating facilities for 1 million years makes absolutely no economic or financial sense at all? 

There is no long term waste solution for the nuclear industry. Further, the consequences of no solution cause further problems, by polluting our environment, with such practices such as the burning of nuclear wastes, and the dumping of nuclear reactors/wastes in the oceans of the world. 

During the time after a nuclear plant is shut down, when no power is being produced, it is costing rate payers or taxpayers money, as the above examples show.. 

A nuclear power plant, unlike any other kind of power plant, cannot just be shut off, and then lay off all of the workers. The toxic and radioactive waste is also a constant and never ending invitation to terrorists, who may use this leftover toxic mess to make a dirty bomb. The plant and the waste must be guarded and protected from terrorists forever. How realistic is this plan? Are you willing to sign up to pay for the next MILLION years to guard some waste that only gave you hot water for 30 years? 

What are the odds of an active nuclear power plant resisting a terrorist attack? Did you know that terrorists have already taken over a nuclear power plant? It is actually pretty easy to take a plant over, or to cause it to melt down, if one knows how to do it. 

We are lucky that terrorists are stupidly attacking only airplanes, because if they can turn off a nuke plant, (not hard to do) and just one spent fuel pool or nuclear reactor melts down, a city or town nearby with millions of people in it will become uninhabitable and have to be abandoned. Is that worth the cost of heating water for 30 years? The following horrible scenarios can and eventually will happen if we do not shut down all nuclear power plants.