The nukesters routinely indulge in deception to promote their industry. The pollution associated with the nuclear fuel cycle is spun like stories regarding a president who didn't think a blowjob was sex.
I don't think any reasonable person would believe it just like the nuclear industry rubbish. Thomas, the real reason for the promotion of nuclear power is so you can clad a light water reactor with U238 and form U239 which is easily separated by chemical action and has very modest shielding requirements making it quite useful as a military explosive. The amount of coal burned and hydro power displaced to obtain the original fuel is oft overlooked, just as the expense to taxpayers is. Utility companies get their fuel from the gvt for pennies on the dollar. Remember there are liars, there are damn liars and there are nuclear industry information people. There are lots of resources on the web to determine the real state of affairs. Get busy with your search engine. Kirk --- Tomas Juknevicius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > > Hakan Falk wrote: > > > > Tomas, > > > > What kind of question is this? > > > > this was not supposed to be a trol question; sorry, > if it sounded like so. > What I wanted to find out, is this a hoax or not? > Maybe someone has some real > numbers > to put out or a link to a research or article of > some kind.. > > > > > Produces, what do you mean? A > nuclear power > > plant does not produce, it uses radioactive > material, if I have not been > > misinformed. > > > Okay, by saying "produces" I did mean that the plant > produces the waste. So, > the statement was that after producing the X kWh of > electricity with the > nuclear powerplant we are left with the Y1 kg amount > of radioactive waste > material > (mostly concentrated in one place); > On the other hand, if we produce the same X kWh of > electricity with the > coal-fired > power plant we are left with the Y2 kg amount of > radioactive waste material > (dispersed through the smoke stack on a large area) > And the guy on the other forum was stating, that > the Y2 > Y1 > (nulcear power plant produces less radioactive waste > than coal fired plant). > This did surprise me, hence this question. > > > Both nuclear and coal are very dangerous fossil > fuel > > applications and the fuel will be spent by both, > neither are a renewable > > energy alternative. Both are going to be depleted > and be used up and are a > > favorite energy sources by USA, who is using more > than the rest of the world. > > > > Hakan > > > > Yes, yes, I know that they are both dirty and > dangerous. But never the less I am > interested > which one of these is less evil ;-) > > > -- > Tomas Juknevicius > > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
