dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote

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

It aint bull****, its fact.

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.

Nope, breeders arent used for power nukes anywhere in the world.

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.

Irrelevant to the rest of the world.

So, that we don't currently use breeders in commercial power
generation in the US is only a political decision, not a technical one.

Pity about the rest of the world.

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.

Wrong, as always. We were discussing what constitutes green.

You havent got a clue about what that means.

Nukes are nothing like green.

They are however the best way to generate power if you care about CO2 emissions.