Why? Do they expect a melt down?!

Nuclear energy is promoted as clean, but it never was. Leukemia and cancer rates within 50 miles of nuclear power plants are much higher than normal. Now that I said this, watch the nuke-heads come out to attack me for saying this. My response is... Tick, Tick, Tick....

Radiation has a nasty habit of prematurely 'aging' materials making them brittle and susceptible to cracking and fractures. Fission energy is basically a dirty energy having deep deleterious effects on generations of wildlife. It is what they don't tell us for covering it up is what should worry everyone. Yet, for fitting the world depopulation agenda, nuclear power plants are an attractive target. Don't believe me?

There is no way of really shutting down a nuclear power plant when it is suppose to be decommissioned.

The expense is extraordinary. This is why the Department of Energy is always extending the life of old nuclear plants. It's basically kicking the can down the street. Because the NRC is extending the life of these reactors, every single one of those nuclear reactors is a ticking time bomb and another Fukishima or Chernobyl waiting to happen. The madmen, err I mean, Dr. Evil Klaus Shwabbs of the world know this.

The NRC reports that there is over 71,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel in more than 30 states. Illinois has 9,301 tons of spent nuclear fuel at its power plants, the most of any state in the country, according to industry figures. It is followed by Pennsylvania with 6,446 tons; 4,290 in South Carolina and roughly 3,780 tons each for New York and North Carolina.

Most all of this is stored on-site at nuclear power plants across the nation either in cooling pools or dry casket storage. None of these storage methods is a solution to long-term storage. Cooling pools require a constant supply of fresh water. The Fukushima disaster occurred because the "fail-safe" backup power for the pumps lost power resulting in the several cooling pools to evaporate exposing the spent fuel rods to air. This caused a nuclear fission chain reaction leading to a China Syndrome of at least three reactors.

Nuclear power is heavily subsidized by the government and without it could NEVER be profitable. There is far more to nuclear power than its expensive energy. The integral byproduct of this energy is radiation that causes "aging" to the containment vessels themselves. This means the containment vessels become fatigued and brittle well before the normal life expectancy. This is why the Hanford site and the Diablo Nuclear power plant alarmingly found cracks and leaks in the units. Science has no solution to this. Yet, the NRC keeps extending the life of existing nuke plants well beyond their life expectancy. Tick, tick, tick.........

Nuclear plants need considerable amounts of electricity to maintain safe operations around both the reactor and spent fuel pool. Most of the time, the power comes from another electric generating station nearby. Shutting down a nuclear power plant doesn't get rid of the hundreds and thousands of tons of spent fuel. Why? There is the lack of a national repository for spent fuel – meaning it must be stored on site – as well as the lack of a coherent nationwide policy. The Yucca Mountain repository is already well over capacity. The industry's collective pile of waste is growing by about 2,200 tons a year. Experts say some of the pools in the United States contain 4-times the amount of spent fuel that they were designed to handle. The U.S. has 104 operating nuclear reactors, situated on 65 sites in 31 states. There are another 15 permanently shut reactors that also house spent fuel. The Maine Yankee nuclear power plant hasn’t produced a single watt of energy in more than two decades, but it cost U.S. taxpayers about $35 million this year.

Before the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, private companies in the U.S. were responsible for their own clean-up and storage of spent nuclear fuel, quickly running out of storage space. However, those private companies were not sufficiently equipped to store their waste long-term, as some kinds of nuclear waste have a half-life (meaning the amount of time they remain radioactive) of up to 17 million years. Congress decided that going forward the burden of responsibility would lie with the United States government, putting the massive cost of cleanup on the shoulders of U.S. taxpayers. Can you say - CORPORATE WELFARE?.

Storing spent fuel at an operating plant with staff and technology on hand can cost $300,000 a year (it's probably much more). Obviously, this price tag doesn't go away after the plant is decommissioned. In fact, the taxpayer pays about 1/2-billion dollars a yr. to the utilities for their simply keeping the fuel because there’s no place for it to go.

"I think it’s discouraging that we continue to release radioactivity to the environment because after more than 40 years we still have not developed a successful plan for going forward." -- Frank Stanton Professor in Nuclear Security, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and at the Precourt Institute for Energy.

Taxpayers pay $6 billion every year to address that problem, a huge cost that we will incur for many decades into the future. The projected total cost of clean-up after the Manhattan Project is well over $300 billion. That’s more than the original cost of the weapons programs and the actual total will be even higher. That’s just the defense waste (https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us). Continuously having to pay for the nuclear waste storage at a decommissioned nuclear power plant year-after-year isn't exactly the definition of being decommissioned. Nuclear Energy as it stands today is a dirty energy. As I have shown, Nuclear energy is the very definition of corporate welfare. It simply is not profitable on its own.

"To date, including every accident and disaster, nuclear remains the safest and cheapest of all publicly available electric generation plants. And is so by a wide margin."

You need not explain away Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the Hanford Nuclear Site. These are the more obvious "safest" energy producing plants. No one can ever reside at Chernobyl and Fukushima again. Not at least safely for several hundred years. The cancer rates at Three-Mile Island and Hanford is unprecedented, but is one big cover-up of legal mumbo-jumbo. The area surrounding all other nuclear sites have much higher cancer rates than areas outside 75 miles away. Nuclear Power plants release radiation hiccups all the time. Tell me would you breathe the steam coming out of those cooling towers? I don't think so. Either would I. What are they not telling us about leaks?