251–260 of 290 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have any of those actually bred more than they used and extracted it without catching fire or spewing radioactivity everywhere? If not it's just MOX, a slightly radioactive sodium fire, or a graphite pile with extra steps.
> Have any of those actually bred yes? do the research. you're making assertions you haven't done research on, apparently.........
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have any of those actually bred more than they used and extracted it without catching fire or spewing radioactivity everywhere? If not it's just MOX, a slightly radioactive sodium fire, or a graphite pile with extra steps.
> Have any of those actually bred yes? do the research. you're making assertions you haven't done research on, apparently.........
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear should be part of the solution. Solar is just too cheap not to do be part of it too. Since there are on demand sources (natural gas peakers, batteries, etc.) and because solar isn't replacing clean sources at this point in time, solar (and wind) can and should be part of the energy mix! Here's one source. Plenty more if you Google it https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf
what should I be looking at in this source? how does it scale? you can scale nuclear/hydro very easily for millions of people .. they inherently scale. solar does not, you need tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of panels. it does not scale. this seems so self evident. like people are holding their hands over their ears and eyes, ignoring the obvious...
Solar is scaling just fine. Installing 5-20 panels per person is hardly prohibitive. It's like claiming wheat can't feed people because it needs trillions of grains so we must stop wheat farming and only eat novelty sized pumpkin and elephant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Make sure to include the effects of heavy metal poisoning, not just radiation. I'm a bit lazy. Maybe you have some numbers available for this? My guess is that deaths caused by this (associated with nuclear power), if at all measurable, would be orders of magnitude lower than deaths from the extraction and pollution associated with fossil fuels (Per GWh). > Here's a riddle. What fraction of world energy can 40,000t…
You're talking about scifi. I'm talking about the next 8 years. You're also completely failing to distinguish between fertile and fissile. So realistically, at the same scale of ore extraction as coal mining. How much power is available?
This article estimates that regular supplies is enough for 230 years at the current rate of consumption:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glo...
If we triple the the number of plants, that would be approximately a 75 year lifetime for existing plants.
Beyond that, the main directions to take would be to use breeder reactors, which would be enough for 30000 years at today consumption, using regular fuels or to extract uranium from seawater, which would provide enough uranium for 60000 years at present rates (and much more if combined with breeder reactors).
In total, there is enough uranium to last thousands of years, even consumption goes up 10x or more.
Obviously, costs will gradually go up, or at least the extraction will require more advanced technology. Even just 75 years is a long time, and a lot can change by year 2100. Thorium or fusion power could be solved by then, or we could have space based solar covering our needs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that seems stupid compared to breeder reactors ??
The reverse is the case. In what way do you think this is stupid? It enables very cheap renewable energy to exploit its huge levelized cost advantage over nuclear yet still be able to cover the rare dark/calm periods the nuclear stans like to angst about. The key observation is that a simple cycle turbine power plant is about $0.50/W, some 20 times cheaper than a nuclear power plant. The fuel is of course much more e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Make sure to include the effects of heavy metal poisoning, not just radiation. I'm a bit lazy. Maybe you have some numbers available for this? My guess is that deaths caused by this (associated with nuclear power), if at all measurable, would be orders of magnitude lower than deaths from the extraction and pollution associated with fossil fuels (Per GWh). > Here's a riddle. What fraction of world energy can 40,000t…
You're talking about scifi. I'm talking about the next 8 years. You're also completely failing to distinguish between fertile and fissile. So realistically, at the same scale of ore extraction as coal mining. How much power is available?
https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html#:~:tex....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as it's indexed off actual decomissioning costs somehow and not just a wind-tax (and similarly doesn't massively underfund like the nuclear decommisioning levy) I think it's an excellent idea. We shouldn't let utilities get away with shit just because it's not fossil fuels.
I don't know details about nuclear decommisioning. In my experience, State permitting standards for decommissioning bonds have been implemented as part of mine permitting and oil and gas permitting. I would like to see more people getting their States to be proactive on all of this: mines wells tires PV iDevices. The laboratory of States will find and create solutions, without a one-size-fits-none federal mandate.
No reason there can't be a per region method for the wind as long as it doesn't make them vulnerable to more powerful, hostile non-state entities (mining, tech companies, and fossil fuels is a fairly big precedent). The wind turbine industry is still fairly chaotic, but will likely become as centralised and powerful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reverse is the case. In what way do you think this is stupid? It enables very cheap renewable energy to exploit its huge levelized cost advantage over nuclear yet still be able to cover the rare dark/calm periods the nuclear stans like to angst about. The key observation is that a simple cycle turbine power plant is about $0.50/W, some 20 times cheaper than a nuclear power plant. The fuel is of course much more e…
What is a breeder reactor?
Why did you think that breeders are better than using hydrogen for long period smoothing of renewable/demand mismatch?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > Was I wrong about something ? > Extremely. Can you concisely explain this without writing a book obfuscating your arguments..? > You can't start a breeder reactor without fissile material Who said otherwise? We stopped the breeder reactor journey mostly because fuel is so cheap. This will become more relevant over time, if necessary, due to natural market forces. dude, what? stop trying to obfuscate the obvious..
So you're both willfully ignorant about the technology you're pushing and unwilling to have it spoon fed to you? Wow.
> it is increasingly clear that our co2 output isn't that scary. we are "greening" the Earth. Sea level rise is well within normal bounds.
Someone making those claims isn't really arguing in good faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're talking about scifi. I'm talking about the next 8 years. You're also completely failing to distinguish between fertile and fissile. So realistically, at the same scale of ore extraction as coal mining. How much power is available?
> So realistically, at the same scale of ore extraction as coal mining. How much power is available? This article estimates that regular supplies is enough for 230 years at the current rate of consumption: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glo... If we triple the the number of plants, that would be approximately a 75 year lifetime for existing plants. Beyond that, the main directions to take wo…
Tripling generation by adding 600GW is nothing.
8 years.
2TWe net installed by the end of it and producing around 300GWe net of new capacity per year.
Renewables are on track (and 2TW is extremely pessimistic). What's your plan? How much ore? Where is the scale?
Ignore the cost. You gotta demonstrate it's possible before you can gaslight about costs.