dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

...in the context of power generation

Nope, the epitomy of green wasnt.

You havent got a clue about what that means.

I know very well how it is used by certain advocates.

Thats how its used by anyone with a clue.

Whether it is a working definition is another matter.

It isnt even a definition, working or otherwise.

I choose to look at an entire system rather than whether or not some label is or isn't meaningful.

Pity nukes still arent anything like green even if you do that.

You'll also note I've used "green", not green if you've been watching carefully...

You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out.

As for breeders, again I have only expounded on what is feasible

It aint what is feasible that makes something green, its what is actually done that matters.

(even more so than relying on your acceptance of the conventional green definition) as being a renewable source, not
that it is presently being used.

Pity that when current power generation by nukes isnt done with breeders,
its completely silly to claim that nuke power is green, as you did.

You really need to read what is actually said rather than what you think is said.

You really need to retake Bull****ting 101.