this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
277 points (94.8% liked)

World News

39005 readers
2135 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BobKerman3999@feddit.it 10 points 1 year ago (9 children)

I'm sorry what? How do you renew fissile material?!?

[–] AbsolutelyNotABot@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (8 children)

It's a little bit complicated and I don't want to write a wall of text but: Waste fuel can be recycled, if your reactor has a breeding ratio higher than 1 then it has net positive production of fissile materials. Potentially all uranium and thorium of the planet could be used.

The argument being, if you consider the word "renewable" in the strictest sense, no energy source is renewable, entropy can only increases: solar depends by the sun burning a finire amount of hydrogen, geothermy depends by earth inner heat which is a finire amount ecc.ecc. The common usage of renewable is along the line of "immensely big proportional to human consumption" and in this sense there's a strong argument to consider nuclear renewable.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 1 points 1 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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)