Nuclear Power not Clean Energy...

[Rockhopper]

We knew that already!

The nuclear industry is bamboozling the Environmental Protection Agency into its agenda of promoting nuclear power as “clean” (“E.P.A. Wrestles With Role of Nuclear Plants in Carbon Emission Rules,” Business Day, Dec. 26). It is no secret that every nuclear power plant regularly emits low-level radiation into the environment. Why focus only on carbon emissions while ignoring iodine-129, plutonium-239, cesium-135 and other lethal radionuclides?

The nuclear industry wants us to focus narrowly on the fission process and to ignore the footprint of mining, milling, enrichment, processing and storing of nuclear fuel.

It also wants us to ignore the elephant in the room: its inability to rid the planet of high-level nuclear waste that accumulates every hour that any nuclear power plant is operating. The latest plan of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in effect to turn every nuclear power plant in the country into a nuclear waste dump is shocking indeed.

The bottom line is very simple: Nuclear power is the most expensive, the most unreliable, the most dangerous and the most environmentally damaging of all forms of energy production.

Here.

Tim.

[Lenzabi]

I recall a Nuclear engineer explaining how instead of reactors similar to those of nuclear subs be used, that they go with breeders which can recycle their fuel. He also said that civilian plants were better suited for Thorium fuel not uranium, but then again, the Cold War meant all reactors could help make the weapon grade stuff so Thorium was kicked to the curb in favor of the toxic stuff for making our massive arsenal of mushroom cloud makers.

Thorium is lower toxicity fuel, and is common enough that it would have been simpler to collect and use. per the Thorium side of the issue of course, but what would have the world been like had Three Mile Island, Fukushima and Chernobyl been using Thorium instead of Uranium?

[Rockhopper]

Yeah Len. Thorium is a much safer fuel. The spend fuel is not radioactive either, good thing!

It ultimately decays to lead 208 (no radiation).

Tim.

[Lenzabi]

While lead is no great thing, being non-radioactive makes it easier to deal with by far than Uranium, or the other lovely isotopes of death the normal fuel used now does.

[Rockhopper]

Edit double post somehow.

Tim.

[Rockhopper]

Yeah but with all that lead you'll have plenty to throw at your "enemies".

Tim.

[Lenzabi]

they are making new bullets w/o lead now as the government is concerned over the traces of lead from spent and broken bullets littering shooting ranges and such.

Manufacturer had a dispute with the Pentagon
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/13/ammunition-manufacturer-just-won-a-huge-lawsuit-against-the-federal-government/

[Rockhopper]

Aye, using Bismuth which is more expensive, or graphite coated steel shot in shotguns that damages the barrels!

Tim.

[Lenzabi]

Aye, using Bismuth which is more expensive, or graphite coated steel shot in shotguns that damages the barrels!

Tim.

That will make more business for gun repair smiths and manufacturers of new barrels.

[Sponsored content]