350
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by alphacyberranger@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 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@lemmy.world 1 points 1 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@lemmy.world 1 points 1 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

[-] AbsolutelyNotABot@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

idle recycling facilities waiting for panels to finally wear out

If they're idle why can't reprocess actual panels ending in waste fields?

Also there's a big flaw in tour argument. Tokyo protocol was a specific piece of legislation, reduction emissions plant etc. So was that Paris agreement And many others Have we solved climate change?

Not understanding that bombarding Pu240 and Pu239 with neutrons produces different isotope ratios than U238

I beg you to read more than the first paragraph of Wikipedia. Pu239 is fissile and is burned in place of the U235 content of enriched uranium. Pu240 neutron capture and become Pu241, which is also fissile. The matrix in most cases is still U238 usually from tailings.

When I say that what you say doesn't make sense is not an insult, literally, your words haven't a complete sense.

[-] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not every neutron capture causes fission. And throwing a random soup of fissile and fertile elements in a hole is how you get a meltdown or no reaction -- they're not fungible. Please stop digging your ignorance-hole deeper.

Maybe consider that PV panels aren't kdentical and the ones built after the WESS are not the same? But there goes the nuance-allergy nuke shills have again.

Also this is all an incredibly stupid tangent in the first place, as renewables are renewable so long as they're at least as recyclable as the nuclear plant. Yet again demonstrating the inability to push over your own straw man.

Now you're also trying the condescending from a position of ignorance tactic on top of that. Stupid and ignorant or smug, pick one.

this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
350 points (94.9% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2530 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS