Other considerations

• Plutonium is not the most toxic substance known. It is less chemotoxic than lead and less radiotoxic than yttrium-90.

• With on-site fuel processing there would be no need for used fuel shipment, and only small and infrequent shipments of fissionable materials for new reactors, and fission products as impervious insoluble ceramics.

• The current U.S. inventory of fissionable materials is nearly 900 tonnes in the form of used fuel, plus about 225 tonnes of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium - enough to start 110-140 GWe of IFR capacity, and there are no other ideas for its use. At the 5% IFR breeding rate, the U.S. reactor fleet could reach 1,700 GWe capacity in 50-60 years without enriching any new uranium, or sooner with enriching, eventually consuming the entire stock of decommissioned weapons and used fuel - which nothing else can do.

• Sir Nicholas Stern estimated that developed nations should invest 1% of GDP to reduce CO₂ emissions by 25-70%, and another 1% to cope with climate change. Spending 2% of U.S. GDP during the 50-60 years required to deploy an all-IFR energy economy would cost at least $20 trillion. Grid improvements for dispersed and variable sources would add $4-5 trillion. Storage to mitigate variability would cost \$76 trillion EVERY YEAR.

• Deploying 1,700 GWe of IFR capacity would cost $2.1-3.7 trillion, depending upon how quickly experience and economies of scale reduce costs, and would reduce net CO₂ emissions by well over 95% - one sixth of Stern's estimated cost to reduce CO₂ emissions by 25-70%.

• Russia, France, China, South Korea, and India are all developing fast-neutron breeder reactors. American nuclear engineers and scientists are retiring and dying faster than new ones are being educated and trained. America will soon be a third-world country in energy technology.

• It is clearly obvious that nuclear power in the form of safe fast-neutron breeder reactors with on-site pyroelectric refining must be a necessary (and economical) part of the American energy economy. Should the United States develop the technology, or buy it from France, Russia, China, South Korea, and India?

• The sooner we start, the better off we will be!