@jsteimy.bsky.social
It is good to see crooked utility commissioners getting voted out. However, for the financial hardship they have caused they should be in jail.
November 16, 2025 at 2:34 AM
It is good to see crooked utility commissioners getting voted out. However, for the financial hardship they have caused they should be in jail.
No mention of getting $$$$$ out of politics? Robert, the same money corrupts both Democratic and republican politicians. How can you dismiss the primary force working against democracy and our republic?
August 15, 2025 at 8:18 PM
No mention of getting $$$$$ out of politics? Robert, the same money corrupts both Democratic and republican politicians. How can you dismiss the primary force working against democracy and our republic?
More than a few of his backers are not OK with the tariffs. However, most are to 🐓💩 and spineless to push back. Bezos is an excellent example of this. He could have listed the tariff cost next to each item but he chickened out.
April 29, 2025 at 7:09 PM
More than a few of his backers are not OK with the tariffs. However, most are to 🐓💩 and spineless to push back. Bezos is an excellent example of this. He could have listed the tariff cost next to each item but he chickened out.
From the same moron that helped the US moron attack Iraq based on 🐂💩 computer graphic representations. It was all manufactured “evidence” to justify stealing oil. Still in the pocket of big oil, and still Mr. Irrelevant.
April 29, 2025 at 6:50 PM
From the same moron that helped the US moron attack Iraq based on 🐂💩 computer graphic representations. It was all manufactured “evidence” to justify stealing oil. Still in the pocket of big oil, and still Mr. Irrelevant.
@schumer.senate.gov You
suck! Get a spine you pathetic slimy politician.
suck! Get a spine you pathetic slimy politician.
March 15, 2025 at 6:28 AM
@schumer.senate.gov You
suck! Get a spine you pathetic slimy politician.
suck! Get a spine you pathetic slimy politician.
The IAEA has always been a spineless and pathetically cowardly organization. This action proves it even to nuclear advocates.
March 2, 2025 at 7:20 PM
The IAEA has always been a spineless and pathetically cowardly organization. This action proves it even to nuclear advocates.
Those are expensive cities for students to live.
February 14, 2025 at 4:34 AM
Those are expensive cities for students to live.
“Opinion”! Is that the best you can do? You do research and come up with content that states “Opinion” at the top of the document? That sums up nuclear advocates better than I ever could.
January 24, 2025 at 4:53 AM
“Opinion”! Is that the best you can do? You do research and come up with content that states “Opinion” at the top of the document? That sums up nuclear advocates better than I ever could.
Wrong again. The 2023 production represents 0.4% of the uranium fuel requirements of the US's nuclear power reactors for the year. The US has the 4th largest uranium deposits in the world. If prices climb high enough they will expand uranium operations long before they reprocess.
January 24, 2025 at 4:40 AM
Wrong again. The 2023 production represents 0.4% of the uranium fuel requirements of the US's nuclear power reactors for the year. The US has the 4th largest uranium deposits in the world. If prices climb high enough they will expand uranium operations long before they reprocess.
Did I say the utilities lost? NO I DID NOT! Putting words in my mouth never uttered is a pathetic tactic of nuclear advocates. This won’t work with me and won’t change the fact that you wrongly grouped military nuclear waste and low level nuclear waste in with what the power reactors paid for.
January 24, 2025 at 4:26 AM
Did I say the utilities lost? NO I DID NOT! Putting words in my mouth never uttered is a pathetic tactic of nuclear advocates. This won’t work with me and won’t change the fact that you wrongly grouped military nuclear waste and low level nuclear waste in with what the power reactors paid for.
Trying to change the subject won’t work with me. You can not get away from the fact that the nuclear engineer that went back to school to study policy didn’t understand nuclear weapons wast & lower radiation waste has no place in a deep geological location they did not pay for.
January 24, 2025 at 4:17 AM
Trying to change the subject won’t work with me. You can not get away from the fact that the nuclear engineer that went back to school to study policy didn’t understand nuclear weapons wast & lower radiation waste has no place in a deep geological location they did not pay for.
Prior to the The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 they had no specific plan for the waste. You need to provide documentation showing reprocessing was the divinities plan.
January 23, 2025 at 7:18 AM
Prior to the The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 they had no specific plan for the waste. You need to provide documentation showing reprocessing was the divinities plan.
For a guy that claims to have studied policy you have shown repeatedly you DO NOT have a firm grasp of US nuclear waste policy.
January 21, 2025 at 7:57 PM
For a guy that claims to have studied policy you have shown repeatedly you DO NOT have a firm grasp of US nuclear waste policy.
So you only provide and pursue ideas that have already failed rather than look for a new solution. Great philosophy … stick with that you will go far.
January 21, 2025 at 7:52 PM
So you only provide and pursue ideas that have already failed rather than look for a new solution. Great philosophy … stick with that you will go far.
Again! You don’t like the multiple geological sites but you don’t have a political solution. As a result you have no funding. Before you can get the funding you MUST HAVE A POLITICAL SOLUTION. It is not rocket science, but also no surprise an engineer doesn’t get it.
January 21, 2025 at 8:02 AM
Again! You don’t like the multiple geological sites but you don’t have a political solution. As a result you have no funding. Before you can get the funding you MUST HAVE A POLITICAL SOLUTION. It is not rocket science, but also no surprise an engineer doesn’t get it.
You don’t have a political solution. Until you do, you have failed and will continue to fail. What technically could be done is irrelevant if it can’t be solved and accomplished politically. The political solution is the only way the money/funding will flow.
January 19, 2025 at 5:13 PM
You don’t have a political solution. Until you do, you have failed and will continue to fail. What technically could be done is irrelevant if it can’t be solved and accomplished politically. The political solution is the only way the money/funding will flow.
Reprocessing is more expensive than mining and processing. Greedy pig utilities are going to stay with the more cost effective solution. Grow up and stop kidding yourself.
January 19, 2025 at 5:05 PM
Reprocessing is more expensive than mining and processing. Greedy pig utilities are going to stay with the more cost effective solution. Grow up and stop kidding yourself.
The defense waste producers never contributed funds for a deep geological site, nor did the “non-power waste producers. Clearly, you need to study the subject more.
January 18, 2025 at 6:14 AM
The defense waste producers never contributed funds for a deep geological site, nor did the “non-power waste producers. Clearly, you need to study the subject more.
Failed again -yucca mountain was not big enough to store all the commercial nuclear waste. Also, non commercial power plant nuclear waste producers did not contribute funds for a deep geological site. Other waste producers don’t get to sue the fed gov like commercial nuclear plants have been.
January 18, 2025 at 6:10 AM
Failed again -yucca mountain was not big enough to store all the commercial nuclear waste. Also, non commercial power plant nuclear waste producers did not contribute funds for a deep geological site. Other waste producers don’t get to sue the fed gov like commercial nuclear plants have been.