A nuclear powered grid might be a lot of things -- but because it will leave a toxic waste trail that lasts for thousands of years -- green is most certainly not one of them. (Photo by Christof Demont-Heinrich)

Just came across a Tweet that pointed me to an article in The Bay City Times (Michigan) -- yet another one -- in which a nuclear advocate tries to claim nuclear is green.

It irritated me enough that I had to post a response to someone else's response to the article. Yes, my response was to yet another person trying to claim nuclear is "green".

Nuclear power may be a lot of things -- expensive, extremely undemocratic in comparison to wind and solar, environmentally destructive to name a few, but green it is not.

It's outrageous that a form of energy which generates toxic waste that lasts for tens of thousands of years tries to pass itself off as green.

How do nuclear advocates get away with it?

The answer: Our obsession with carbon.

News alert: Carbon's not the world's only "pollution" problem.

Many environmentalists must take some of the blame for focusing so much on carbon that:

a) our society has seemingly forgotten about other environmental catastrophes;

b) it's allowed nuclear advocates to claim -- falsely -- that nuclear is "green".

Nuclear might be "carbon free," but it is not green. Never will be.

Why go nuclear and generate radioactive waste for hundreds of human generations when renewables can -- yes they can -- power the world?