Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
....

I didn't see all this bs earlier so final comments...

And why not, pray tell?

Green is primarily about renewable resources and power nukes aint.

We dont even use breeder reactors for nuke power generation.

That we don't currently is only owing to the shortsightedness of a
former administration that decreed the NRC would not process the
licensing application for the reprocessing facility GE was planning to
build in Barnwell, SC, area.

The same administration followed that gem w/ the cancellation of the
CRBRP demonstration project outside Oak Ridge, TN.

At my former employer, we were designing for Pu and Th reload fuel
cycles in conventional PWRs in the early to mid-'70s. Needless to say,
the above two actions precluded going further.

So, that we don't currently use breeders in commercial power generation
in the US is only a political decision, not a technical one. Also note
I didn't say we currently were breeding only that it is feasible; hence
renewable.

Being less intrusive on the environment of the _OVERALL_ process from manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and
disposal is the epitome of "green".

Nope. Infanticide would be very green using that test and you
wont find too many spruiking infanticide as being very green.

The discussion is of power generation, not population control so the
comparison is of no value.

--