Debunking the Nuclear Renaissance

ok I rustled this up for you tell me what you think

The nuclear industry was economically dead for decades. In 2005 the American Congress breathed 12 billion tax payer dollars to bring it back from the brink, and where there is nuclear power the same state-capitalist croneyism follows the world over. Without free money from the public sector, the nuclear industry does not survive. No one would insure a nuclear powerplant on a free market because it simply wouldn't be worth the risk. Instead states take liabily.

Nuclear power was never really introduced to produce energy as such, it was used in the 50s as a front for producing plutonium for nuclear weapons and to offset the cost somewhat. Time and time again it's proven itself be the most expensive form of energy production.
The anti-greenhouse argument for nuclear energy is very weak. Fossil fuel energy is needed to mine uranium and transport it, produce the cement and transporting that too, build the reactor, deal with the waste and many other processes. Then there is the processes of purifying what comes out the ground (which is becoming increasingly inpure.) This itself create a lot of carbon emissions and puts poison chemicals into the ground. The radioactity that was released from uranium mining in into the environment many decades ago still poisons the landscape, the water, and damages health - when the Uranium-235 is split it gives off polutants that affect the air, water, ditches... Mining for the fuel has been an environmental disaster which has destroyed the lands of native peoples like American Indians and Aboriginies. As supplies become rarer and rarer more sites need to be located for aquiring it at the expense of natural landscapes and indigenous peoples.

Conservation of Energy bests producing more every time. In one study students found that every pound spent on energy efficiency saved seven times as much carbon as every pound spent on nuclear power. In 1993 the book Energy Without End by Michael Flood featured a house built in British Columbia, which has a climate similar to South England, that received an Annual Electric Heating Bill of £12. It was four times the size of an average British house.

Heat is thrown away from our powerstations, poured into the sky as flue gases and steam. Instead this "waste steam" could be piped in order to heat homes an workplaces,  afterall, what is the best way to eliminate hypothermia which kills many elderly people in their own homes evey winter? To produce more energy at great cost and hope they can afford it or to insulate their houses so that they retain heat at less expense? The government should spend money on grants for insulation instead of nuclear power. Energy efficiency also creates more jobs.

We have a lot better chance of making solar and wind work now than we have of isolating the enormous amounts of nuclear waste that are being created every day. Plutonium 239, just one of the bi-products, has a half-life of 24,400 years - 4 times longer than recorded history! It could takes over 500,000 years for even a small quantity of it to become harmless. The lethal dosage is a thousandth of a gram.
Wasting money on the irresponsivle act of producing pqwer through nuclear fission inhibits us as a society from making the leap to sustainables. Perhaps future generations will never forgive us for leaving them our nuclear legacy to manage but perhaps we can stop adding fuel to the nuclear fire.