schroedingershat @ schroedingershat @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

375

Joined

2 yr. ago

This is a fallacy called Texas sharpshooter. We’ll know if they will be recycled in 20 years, how can we verify this now? How can this be an argument of any value?

No, because there is a specific piece of legislation mandating it, a clear well costed industrial plan, and idle recycling facilities waiting for panels to finally wear out.

What you've done is the "nothing can ever start happening more than it is now" fallacy which nuke shills love to roll out.

Not understanding that bombarding Pu240 and Pu239 with neutrons produces different isotope ratios than U238 is a very good way of demonstrating that you actually understand reprocessing /s

Well no, that's the thing. They've replaced moving away from fossil fuels now with promising they're going to in 2045

Incredibly well quantified emissions that are in total lower than the emissions from mining uranium (except for two or three cherry picked mines which are supposed to be representative), or the emissions from building and decomissioning a nuke if you take real lifetimes and load factors.

Chances of a leak are roughly 100%

Most sites are unusable for a few decades due to tritium leaks.

Chances of an economy-destroying disaster on the other hand are much lower, but you didn't ask that.

Green steel is the perfect dispatchable load. The steps up until sponge iron require very little capex, with the input costs being driven by energy price it is a far better match for renewables.

Same goes for high temperature electrolysis.

The resulting iron stores 2-8kWh/kg with nothing more than a box as infrastructure (and maybe some oil or nitrogen to stop rust).

Both are so ideal as dispatchable loads that iron js seriously being considered as a fuel/energy carrier instead of hydrogen.

Then run the arc furnaces which are higher capex and labour cost but a fifth of the energy at a constant rate.

The idea of buildkng nuclear to run green steel is utterly deranged.

If you want 99.9999% uptime with no backup then the nuclear fleet will need months or years of storage due to the prevalence of correlated unplamned outages.

Back in reality, a good enough renewable system with >95-99% uptime has less than 10% of the storage that will be found in the accompanying country's EV fleet. Even if you are too allergic to nuance to understand the real solution for the remainder, simply planning a renewable rollout and assuming existing fossil fuel peakers for down periods over 12 hours will take 20-100 years to release as much carbon as delaying one of the years waiting for late, over budget nuclear reactors.

I pointed out your lies and contradictions.

You responded with condescending insults and accusations of ignorance.

You've now switched from closed cycle to using the dregs via reprocessing. Entirely unrelated concepts (and reprocessing is also ecologically awful and uneconomical in addition to not meaningfully reducing mining).

In reality all solar panels in large parts of europe built since 2015 will be recycled.

This happen routinely even in non breeder reactors, industrial nuclear nuclear reprocessing is a thing and many reactors in the world run on MOX fuel with plutonium extracted from spent LWR fuel. You only need a breeding ratio higher than 1 because otherwise fissile content will keep diminishing. Arguably there’s no more base research needed, both breeding and nuclear reprocessing are time tested process. What we need is industrial scale up, which is a little bit further than a proof of concept

A soup of random plutonium isotopes isn't usable for MOX. MOX-2 has never happened.

You cannot even keep your bizarre straw man tangent straight.

The best time to ignore the nuke shills and build wind and solar was the 1940s when both wind and solar thermal were proven economically and fission hadn't happened yet.

The second best time is now.

Good thing your straw man isn't what is being suggested by anyone anywhere.

Iran was quite progressive before the US intervened to secure oil.

Syria had a strong left wing separatist movement before the US intervened and repeatedly betrayed them.

The extremist right theocrats in Afghanistan were kept safe during the war and reinstated (but the moderates and extremist left wing are dead).

Ethiopia, Sudan same story.

The Saudi Arabian and Israeli theocrats are allies of the west. The west supports the genocide Israel's ultra-conservative government is performing.

Niger has been destabilized by france for decades to keep them from controlling their energy resources. Just because what russia is going to do is worse, doesn't mean the existing corruption (and thus the ability for russia to trigger the coup) wasn't the direct result of western imperialism.

It is publicly stated policy of the fascist evangelicals in the US to spread homophobia and hate via "charities".

At every turn, anyone outside the imperial core with resources has the most corrupt and theocratic element assisted by the west. The US brings the opposite of democracy or progressivism, and there are many countries in europe that are just as bad.

And that's not to mention the growing fascist movements in the UK and Italy who would love to go back to stoning women.

..no it won't because the new nuclear will generate nothing for 20 years. Whereas the renewables will reduce some carbon, even if we pretend that storage is both unsolvable (as opposed to already cheaper than nuclear) and necessary in a grid that's already 40% hydro.

Please, either spend some time educating yourself, or refrain from commenting further on the topic of nuclear power. Your lack of knowledge is causing you to (possibly inadvertently) contribute to the spread of disinformation.

More attempted projection after having your lies pointed out. Pointing out your attempts at disinformation is the opposite. What you are doing is disgusting and intentional.

Cancelling low carbon energy and making vague promises of spending 10x as much is definitely not a pro fossil fuel move /s

Another bullshit attempt at paltering. Capacity factor isn't reliability. Failing unpredictably when needed and when asserting that it will work then is unreliability. Your own assertion is that the need was for a handful of hours when the nukes failed.

So the problem was nuclear being unreliable, and you can't comprehend the idea of picking the worst recent year before dropping demand due to covid (or clicking on the year dropdown or hitting the hourly output).

You know who funds all the fascist totalitarian governments and insane anti-minority regimes right?

Just because the picture is comparatively rosy in the inner empire, doesn't mean the west isn't pushing theocracies and destroying democracies.

I'm sure they'll take just as much care for indigenous reindeer herders when choosing where to poison thousands of km^2 of land as they did when using them for hostage shield politics to sabotage the wind rollout.

Or is an entire country supposed to run indefinitely on the single year worth of reserves already known?

Building a stop-gap that will be ready 20 years after you get to the main destination for 10x the price isn't a bright move.

It means your gas shares will pay dividends for a few extra years.