"I was trying to point out one way oil consumption can be reduced." Druid

The science is beyond dispute.
The barrier is not scientific possibility, it's economic disincentive, and societal status quo.
"A precedent embalms a principle." Benjamin Disraeli 1804 - 1881

"The question is nuclear energy/ nuclear waste disposal, not deficit spending." MG

The topic is:
Is Nuclear Power the way Forward?

And while it is perfectly legitimate to address this topic from a scientific point of view (as I have), it is equally legitimate to also address it from an ethical, & or moral point of view (as I have).
And after I did, you replied derisively, because you disagree.
And in such disagreements, it's perfectly acceptable to attempt to cite the hypocrisy of one's debate opponent, by citing a contradiction between analogous positions (as it seems I have).
"And I very much doubt you know a darn thing on my position on that matter.

M. Graham"

Well MG, that's not very bright.
It's plain for all to see that your position is to ignore the direct question.
And in light of your style, and such redirected pettiness as:
"Actually, I didn't refuse to answer the question, I ignored it." MG

Indicates you're not comfortable with your answer.

It doesn't require an Einstein to figure out why.
"And I very much doubt you know a darn thing on my position on that matter.

M. Graham"

I know for a fact you did not answer explicitly, which means, in the context of the rest of your post, your implicit answer is fairly obvious.
But there's no point in speculating or squabbling about it.
You can put an end to all that simply by declaring your position on it.
Or do you prefer bickering; or trying to "win" against an opponent, instead of cooperatively seeking truth & solution through constructive clarity?