There is no correlation between nuclear weapons production and nuclear power generation. If anything they compete for the same raw materials. They were developed in the same era because that's when we discovered how to harness fission.
Also depleted uranium is not spent fuel. Depleted uranium is the byproduct of enriching uranium to weapons grade. Given the natural ratios of u238 to u235, there's an abundance of it from refining nuclear weapons hence why some weapons and armor utilize it.
I know enough to know that if you're worried about pollution from Nuclear then you should be worried about all the waste products in production of solar panels which can be extremely toxic. And that if you're specifically talking about the amount of radiation a megawatt reactor will produce in it's life time you should never venture anywhere close to a coal burning plant because the amount of radioactive material they let loose into the atmosphere is orders of magnitudes greater than you could get from a uranium reactor, with thorium reactors being predicted and shown in small scale testing to have significantly less dangerous byproducts left over. With several theories and proposed designs for fusion and thorium reactors that could recycle spent fuel and further reduce the amount of high level waste a facility would have at the end of it's life cycle, because unlike all other forms of energy generation, the nuclear facilities contain and keep their waste products on site for decades and only transfer it off site during decommissioning.
This excuse doesn't make any sense. This myth also needs to die. You can't get weapons grade materials from fission reactors, and you certainly aren't converting spent fuel into weapons. The process of refining weapons grade uranium or synthesizing plutonium have nothing to do with energy producing reactors
Uranium was endorsed because it was easier to create a reactor with and didn't have to deal with the corrosive issue that metallurgy of the early nuclear age into the 50s couldn't really handle economically.
It's a lot simpler than the majority of humanity reverting to pre-industrial lifestyles.
Tell me you don't know anything about nuclear energy without saying you don't know anything about nuclear energy.
Exactly. If you only go by kw/euro spent then you end up tearing down wind turbines to expand coal mines which Germany has already done.
If you go by the actual environmental cost and sustainability, specifically carbon use and land use ar square meter/kw, nuclear becomes so "cheap" you have to ask if anyone who is opposed to it cares about future generations still having a habitable planet and living in a civilization that hasn't collapse into the pre-industrial.
We need nuclear to be the backbone of our future same as we need wind and solar as renewables to supplement and offer quick expansion and coverage of energy needs as our demands continue to rise.
Trump has no idea how the economy works, his wealth is propped up by Russian oligarchs laundering money through his assets.
This move is almost certainly being directed to him through foreign agents the traitor has as advisors (though they consider themselves handlers) on behalf of Putin and other regimes hostile to the US who back door'd their way into the situation through his greed and lack of morality.
Russian asset undermining American interests and alliances. Can't imagine why.
Dismantling education is exactly how we got here.
Much like Sadam before him, he has a number of body doubles so even if it did appear he was assassinated in public, probably get some story about a miraculous rescue and recovery if acknowledged 'Putin' was in the area at all.
Trump finally starting to realize Putin has no respect for them and their relationship is far more onesided than he ever feared it might be.
That's not a point in favor of why they coexist. The military is going to fund uranium mining one way or the other, given the potency of nuclear weapons as a deterrence, as well as their own militarized applications of nuclear reactors powering aircraft carriers.
The only valid argument for why military planning influenced civilian nuclear power because the military also tested and decided on nuclear power for various applications because it was efficient, reliable and had long term viability with minimal space investment. But even the military came to the conclusion it wanted nuclear power where it could get independent of wanting nuclear weapons.
Edit: And as a bonus, just because this myth is so dumb, Chicago-1 predated the Manhattan project and is directly cited as being an inspiration for the Manhattan project, not the other way around as people keep trying to claim. Even without nuclear weapons we would still have uranium powered nuclear reactors, and they'd probably be more prevalent without all the fearmongers hopping on the big oil bandwagon and spewing propaganda that couldn't be further from the truth.