When asked about the federal government’s role, 41% of Americans say it should encourage the production of nuclear power.

Let’s get those new construction contracts signed!

    • @schroedingershat
      link
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        You seem really worked up and are being nasty. All of my numbers have sources, I’ve explained my whole process, and haven’t been nasty with you.

        What gives? Why you do me this way?

        The consumption rate in the article you provided is in tons/yr. That consumption rate is for primary energy. 617 EJ is also primary energy. 10% was the best stat I could find for what amount of that 617 EJ was from nuclear. I’ve asked you if you think a different percentage would be better and you dodged.

        Calculating out how long a finite resource will last with a fixed consumption rate is trivial and when I asked this question I was really curious why we came up with results that are orders of magnitude different. I’m not trolling you despite the paranoia that’s set in.

        • @schroedingershat
          link
          11 year ago

          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.

          • Franzia
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You are clearly bullying the OP. Seems like you are intelligent and like angry that not everyone else is on the same page. I think OP held their own, I’d have crumbled after only one or two replies from you.

            • @schroedingershat
              link
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’re giving them far too much credit. The bad faith misapplication of arithmetic followed by demanding that other people untangle their exact “reasoning” is an intentional misinformation technique. Typically employed by fascists and nazi apologists, but not all anti-climate trolls are doing it to engineer dependence on russian uranium and gas so it is hard to tell whether they’re an astroturfer fkr rosatom, a fossil astroturfer, a uranium squeeze finance bro, someone who just really loves what’s happening to the people in places like Arlit or Adapa, or just a bad faith idiot.

              People who are misinformed or ignorant deserve respect. Bad faith trolls do not.

          • @[email protected]OP
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Okay, let’s do it with your numbers.

            We’re still off quite a bit. How do you get a “few years of uranium” out of this?

            • @schroedingershat
              link
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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?

              • @[email protected]OP
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                No, that’s the electicity number you gave me. Any idea how much ore you need to enrich uranium to 3%?

                • @schroedingershat
                  link
                  11 year 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.

                  • @[email protected]OP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    Did it ever occur to you that you come off like as asshole?

                    I don’t get this part:

                    evidenced by 67500t being consumed to produce 9EJ in a year

                    followed by this part:

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

                    It sounds like your mixing up 90 years of power with 1.3 years of primary energy. (Also why are you now comparing to primary energy? You made a stink about this earlier.) The answer is beginning to look more like 100 years if we only mine virgin stuff (no recycling of fuel, no dismantling of weapons grade fuel, etc).

                    Where is your “a few years”? You don’t mean using the electricity produced as primary energy do you?