schroedingershat @ schroedingershat @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

375

Joined

2 yr. ago

You're about to play another imbecilic game where you try and swap around enrichment fractions and burnup rates and pretend that tails assay is 0%

You need ~67500t to produce 9EJ in a large scale burner reactor as evidenced by 67500t being consumed to produce 9EJ in a year in lrge scale burner reactors.

Do that 90 times and you have produced 810EJ or a little over 1.3 years of primary energy.

Use that electricity more efficiently than fossil fuels and it lasts a couple of years to cover everything.

Put it in an SMR and it lasts about 60% as long.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/yes-in-my-backyard-nationals-happy-to-go-nuclear-20230809-p5dv43.html

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N5LeO6TBslk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One

You are still pretending energy is electricity (the goal and context is to replace all fossil fuels, not just electricity) as well as for some bizarre reason pretending (insofar as your 7031t number could he assumed to have any meaning) enriched fuel grade uranium is natural uranium.

Why are you still trying? Your bullshit has been thoroughly called, there is no way to pretend you are acting in good faith.

Or is now the time you go on your gish gallop about non-existent breeders and reprocessing?

Oh we've reached the crying victim stage of the troll. Nice.

I've pointed out the tactic you used several times now. You can read any of the comments I made or your own sources if you want to try and figure out why 9/600 isn't 0.1.

If you want to run a hole digging campaign with public money you can do it with something that doesn't permanently poison native land.

Or alternatively employ those people to do something useful.

Your screenshot literally says electricity in the url, not energy.

You’re now actively pretending to not understand the distinction rather than reading your own sources

For anyone else reading this who isn't a russian troll:

617EJ is primary energy. 10% of this is 61EJ

Electricity is around 100EJ (90EJ when that statistic was taken), 10% of 90EJ is 9EJ or the quantity of electricity produced by nuclear reactors from ~65,000t of natural U.

Playing stupid games with arithmetic and pretending not to understand that electricity is a subset of energy just makes your attempt to palter look even stupider.

Your screenshot literally says electricity in the url, not energy.

You're now actively pretending to not understand the distinction rather than reading your own sources. Why double down when it's already very obvious what you're doing?

All cars are awful, but an EV consuming 140Wh of electricity from you hypothetical all-coal grid from 60g of coal is still far better than an ICE burning 160g of petrol in their brodozer which required burning another 30g of gas and oil to refine after being pumped from a low-yield shale patch using 140Wh of electricity using that same 60g of coal.

There's plenty of diversity available without flooding yet another native town with uranium tailings from a mine you refuse to clean up in order to support a technology that can provide at most a 5% contribution to the total.

Wind, PV, solar-thermal, tidal, wave, hydro, agricultural waste based biofuel, waste methane, even orange hydrogen are all options that are less harmful and have fewer externalities.

Money represents resources and labour.

The 5GW of distributed or utility solar uses less mass and less of every individual element than the 1GW nuclear reactor except for Silicon and Oxygen (the most abundant things). 3GW of wind requires much less of everything except concrete (and the gap is closing rapidly).

1000 people (including the underpaid factory workers and the upstream supply chain) working for a year can produce, ship and install the utility PV or 2-3 years for distributed, but it takes the same workforce a decade for the NPP just at the construction site (excluding the underpaid miners in Uzbekistan or Niger).

You're also presupposing results that have never happened historically and are incredibly easy for the fossil fuel industry (who are pushing this) to delay or sabotage.

This is quite the mental gymnastics routine. I'm going to give you a benefit of the doubt and assume you fell for it and are suffering cognitive dissonance rather than assuming you are lying on purpose.

You are conflating electricity and primary energy several times in a way that boosts the answer by around an order of magnitude each time.

https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/WorldTrendinElectricalProduction.aspx

2680TWh is 9.6EJ, not 61EJ.

https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review

2680TWh is 9% of 29165TWh of electricity, not 10% of energy (either primary or final). Primary energy being around 600EJ by the same source. Final energy being harder to calculate because fossil fuels make a lot of waste heat (and you can choose to draw the boundary at the electrical power to the heat pump vs. the output), but usually estimated between 150EJ and 300EJ.

You could have very simply observed that 6 million is about 90 times 65,000, not 5000.

90 * 0.09 = 8.

There are 8 years of fuel for current electricity demand calculated from 11x (1/0.09) the current nuclear prodiction consuming 65,000t of NatU being ~700,000t with the known reserves you listed (there is more economically accessible uranium available than this, but not orders of magnitude).

Additionally 10-100MW scale SMRs being developed are much less efficient than large LWRs because the neutrons are largely wasted rather than making and fissioning Pu239.

This where you either apologise and stop pushing climate denial propaganda, or alternatively start a gish gallop about EBR, reprocessing, and Phenix confirming you made your mistakes in bad faith.

Why is gifting grifters trillions of dollars to make negligible impact on climate change in response to a fossil industry marketing campaign not about the grifters or the fossil industry?

In the context of burner reactors (the only fuel cycle that has ever been demonstrated for a full fuel load and the only cycle with any serious proposal for a new reactor).

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

The amount of uranium the industry thinks they might be able to find (not the stuff already found) before the fuel alone costs more than renewable energy is about 10 million tonnes. Bear in mind the ore for the lower end if this holds so little uranium that you get less energy per kg of material processed than you do by digging up coal.

Each kg of natural uranium produces about 140GJ of electricity in the current fleet or 80-120GJ in an SMR (which is the main proposal for expanding generation).

Current world primary energy is about 550EJ/yr. Electrifying could reduce this to 300EJ, but demand is also increasing.

If you dug up all the known and inferred uranium reserves today and put it in SMRs like a nuscale or last energy one to produce 10TW (the average annual energy goal for renewables), it would run out halfway through 2025. It wouldn't even be enough for a full initial fuel load.

If it were all EPRs and AP1000s (which have an amazing construction track record) and no demand growth was provided to offset efficiency gains if electrification, you might squeeze a decade out of it.

So stop trying to help the fossil industry get in the way of it. Very simple.

I live in a multi family dwelling with 6 people including 3 teenagers with one bathroom and there's never been an issue.

Privacy locks exist and plenty of people manage.

I mean ensuites are nice, but they are a luxury. Especially for a first home of a single person or a new couple.

You're the one performatively misunderstanding simple concepts.

Your grasp of the distinction between apartment and building is as abysmal as every other concept you mention.

Also you seem to be equally ignorant of the idea of owning an apartment and of social housing.

Wouldn’t renting out a building you don’t live in be illegal

Yes. That's the point. You can own it if it's your residence even if someone else lives there too.

Also you don't seem to comprehend the concept of bed and breakfast

People are educated. That's why they're buying solar panels even in places where laws are being written to make it harder and 10x more expensive.