Boron: A Better Energy Carrier than Hydr

I don't mind nuclear plants over my back fence, and Greenpeace contractors, although they do so very quietly, do routinely get on board nuclear ships. It is as if they understood a nuclear boat ride is the safest kind, but also understood they could lose their gig for saying so. 
 
The same dynamic applies to government scientists. The price of uranium was recently $230,000 per tonne, versus natural gas costs of $4.4 million per uranium-tonne-equivalent, and petroleum costs near $10 million per uranium-tonne-equivalent -- plus tax, in both cases. They know nuclear is the safest and cleanest power we have, but hadn't better say so lest their paymaster lose more oil-and-gas income. 
 
The radioactivity that splitting the atom produces is indeed a nuisance, but insofar as this has been done for energy production, no neighbours appear to have been harmed in any way. 
 
But as harmless as nuclear waste has been, what about its building up and reaching a tipping point? You can understand this is not a reasonable concern if you understand how much natural radioactivity there is in the Earth, much of it due, not surprisingly, to uranium; millions of millions of tonnes of it.  
 
Our year-2107 descendants will inherit lands in which, buried a kilometre deep or less, are 250 billion watts of radioactivity. This may include, halfway down or a little further, our radioactive legacy to them, now approaching 0.3 billion year-2107 watts, in sturdy containers. The rest will be natural; it's there now.

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

Guest