On 25/07/2013 06:31, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 24/07/2013 20:53, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/07/2013 19:13, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 18:45, harryagain wrote:

...
And we are all going to have to use less...

Why on earth should I have to, just to satisfy a few vocal 'greens'
who
can't understand that nuclear power is the greenest option.

Colin Bignell

We can't even dispose of the nuclear waste we've got, it is not the
greenest
option.

There are many ways to dispose of it.
We could burn most of it in a coal powered station and it would make sod
all difference to the radiation coming from it.


Because there are too many people chasing too little fuel.
It's not a matterof vocla greens. It is supply and demand.
You won't be able to afford inefficient use of fuel.
None of us will.

Nukes are ~100% efficent if the greens shut up and allow the
reprocessing.
We are currently burning the waste plutonium from the bombs.
We could burn other waste in the new reactors.


My, you are in cloud cuckoo land.You need to get read up on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutoni...power_reactors



You really should read the stuff you post..

quote

A small percentage of plutonium-239 can be deliberately added to fresh
nuclear fuel. Such fuel is called MOX (mixed oxide) fuel, as it contains a
mixture of uranium oxide (UO2) and plutonium oxide (PuO2). The addition of
plutonium-239 reduces or eliminates the need to enrich the uranium in the
fuel.


Which bit of "Small percentage" don't you understand?.



Which bit of "they are burning plutonium" did you fail to understand?

It saves all that expensive separation of uranium that you claimed made
uranium in short supply.