• @schroedingershat
    link
    English
    91 year ago

    Calling an LWR renewable because somebody somewhere might run a closed fuel cycle eventually is like calling oil renewable because you can make hydrocarbons by electrolyzing CO2 and water.

    It’s and absurd and ridiculous lie.

    • @AbsolutelyNotABot
      link
      English
      -21 year ago

      With the same argument calling solar and wind renewables just because, hypothetically someone somewhere can fully recycle turbines and panels without having to extract new raw materials is an absurd and ridiculous lie (?)

      • @schroedingershat
        link
        English
        51 year ago

        Except it has happened at least once at >99% yield.

        And happens regularly commercially at >70% yield.

        So you continue to repeat stupid and absurd lies.

        • @AbsolutelyNotABot
          link
          English
          -11 year ago

          Could you back your claims up?

          Because in Europe and US the recycling rate if solar panels is around 10% and that without considering we might being miscalculating their real impact

          Otherwise, first fast reactor has been built in 1946, we’re basically done and there’s absolutely no more industrial research needed as it happened at least once /s

          • @schroedingershat
            link
            English
            51 year ago

            You’re now trying to misdirect with an unrelated statistic. The current market saturation of recycling isn’t the amount of a panel that can be recycled.

            Breeding some fissile fuel is not closing the fuel cycle. No reactor has ever prodiced the same material it ran on. Closed cycle nuclear is not even proof of concept.

            • @AbsolutelyNotABot
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              The current market saturation of recycling isn’t the amount of a panel that can be recycled.

              The current market for nuclear reprocessing isn’t the amount reprocessable either. But to adhere to your argument, it’s the probability for a given panel to be recycled; if there isn’t an economic rationale, because recycled materials from panels is more expensive than vergin materials, then it’s called being out of market, not market saturation.

              In reality we aren’t recycling solar panels.

              No reactor has ever prodiced the same material it ran on

              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

              • @schroedingershat
                link
                English
                11 year ago

                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.

                • @AbsolutelyNotABot
                  link
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Entirely unrelated concepts

                  A closed cycle require reprocessing, how else would you recover fissile content in exhaust fuel? Magic?

                  in addition to not meaningfully reducing mining Because of the low fissile content. Still 20% net reduction in virgin uranium

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

                  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?

                  A soup of random plutonium isotopes isn’t usable for MOX This sentence doesn’t make sense whatsoever, MOX-2 isn’t even a thing that exist, you’ve just made it up…

                  • @schroedingershat
                    link
                    English
                    11 year 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