I think it's fair to characterize the antinuclear movement as cynical and disingenuous in general,they are a political movement that has never argued in good faith scientifically. In fairness the original governmental nuclear program withheld from the public that the designs behind power generation were actually being driven by weapons needs and the long term storage issues largely result from that dual use design.
> In fairness the original governmental nuclear program withheld from the public that the designs behind power generation were actually being driven by weapons needs
I have to challenge you on this statement. Certainly the 1940s Hanford reactor designs were for weapons production, and yes dual use (weapons & commercial power) was briefly considered in the early 1950s, but as early as 1953 it was rejected as an option by the US government, who had enough weapons material production coming from Hanford and projections from Savannah River that there was no justification for more.
Further, the Atomic Energy Commission actually worried that if nuclear power plants became very popular, they didn't want to be stuck with a fixed price contract requirement to buy any excess plutonium.
The Power Demonstration Reactor Program of 1958-1965 was run to find the best reactor for making economical power. It was very open and public. By 1965, light water reactors were offered at cost parity with coal plants and the fleets of today were kicked off.
So, brief mention of dual use was ended in the early 1950s, whereas the designs of today were commercialized in the 1960s.
The US built one dual use reactor at Hanford. The N Reactor generated weapons plutonium starting in 1963 and it also generated 800 MW of electricity from 1966 on. It shut down in 1987.
