4 ms·

> Weren't you just asserting expertise Was I wrong about something ? > Energy payback time. Right. This doesn't scale as close to as well as nuclear ........

> Weren't you just asserting expertise Was I wrong about something ? > Energy payback time. Right. This doesn't scale as close to as well as nuclear .......... > You'd have to increase uranium mining 5x ??? if things actually do become expensive, welcome to breeder reactors bro

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Was I wrong about something ? Extremely. > Right. This doesn't scale as close to as well as nuclear .......... Using extremely generous assumptions about high grade ore, and old, much simpler reactors you can come in slightly under that for about a month. https://world- https://world- nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/energy-return-on-investment.aspx EROI is significantly worse than solar because of ongoing energy costs for fuel and O&M. Especially if you use ore that is typical rather than the low hanging fruit. A perc module is around 60-120 depending on where it is placed. NPP is 15-60 depending on where its uranium comes from, how it is enriched and whether it uses reprocessing. >> Mining: Ranger ore in 2008 was 0.26% U head grade. Energy: 273 GJ/t U3O8, 322 GJ/tU, including significant development work. (Note that if ore of 0.01% U is envisaged, this would give 1638 TJ/yr, 70 PJ total for mining & milling, hence total 108 PJ for the centrifuge option, thus inputs become 3.3% of output and energy ratio becomes 30.) All Ranger inputs are thermal (it generates own electricity). The Schneider 2010 figure for mining & milling is similar to Rössing. > ??? if things actually do become expensive, welcome to breeder reactors bro You can't start a breeder reactor without fissile material so new capacity still needs just as much (they don't exist so can't say for sure, but about double per GW by fairly generous estimates, actually). Additionally most of the concepts need about 2-10% of annual Beryllium production per reactor. You have to fit something into the industrial capacity of the world before you can start gaslighting about costs that consistently go up or about costs of technologies that don't exist and might maybe start figuring out the hard bit of extraction and refuelling in ten years. Expanding Uranium mining 5x would require processing a billion tonnes of ore per year. For reference Iron Ore production is about 2.5 billion tonnes. You'd need at least 30 million tonnes of sulfuric acid (world production is about 180 million). Then for the reactors you'd need the most of the world supply of chromium. For a PWR you'd need half of the indium, and significant amounts of Zirconium, Cadmium and silver. Reliable Molten salt reactors don't exist and there's one MSR with okay capacity factor, but no information about how kuch noble metal they need is available. This is just to match renewables now mind you, not where they will be when you finally open your mines (which takes years or decades). The idea that Nuclear could scale to match renewables in under 50 years is laughable. Which is why fossil fuel shills butt into every conversation to claim renewables can't work and must be replaced with it.
- __pache__ 4y ago
  > > 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..
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    So you're both willfully ignorant about the technology you're pushing and unwilling to have it spoon fed to you? Wow.
    - nl 4y ago
      I think this quote from @__pache__ says a lot: > 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.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Of course not. But it's fun watching them have a tantrum when they run out of lies and I've learnt a lot of cool new things from looking up the lies. It also helps distribute reality in contrast to the usual talking points. Most people don't know that nuclear is very limited in scale and actually and quite poor from a land use and energy perspective if it were to be expanded, or that the overwhelming majority of radiation comes from sourcing fuel. I've seen a few bystanders go 'oh shit, you only get 100-500mW per kg of mining?' Or 'wait, none of the breeders have actually done the thing?'
        nl 4y ago
        I think the nuclear stans (your term, which I like) usually don't know a lot about what they are promoting. Anything a nuclear plant can do a long distance transmission line can do better, with already proven technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity_transmission_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity... I like this quote: For example, a recent report by researchers from the Earth System Research Laboratory published in Nature Climate Change found that a UHVDC transmission line in the US could cut emissions by as much as 80% by harnessing Wyoming’s abundant wind power potential and transporting the electricity to California. https://www.power-technology.com/analysis/chinas-mega-transmission-lines/ https://www.power-technology.com/analysis/chinas-mega-transm...

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> Was I wrong about something ? Extremely. > Right. This doesn't scale as close to as well as nuclear .......... Using extremely generous assumptions about high grade ore, and old, much simpler reactors you can come in slightly under that for about a month. https://world- https://world- nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/energy-return-on-investment.aspx EROI is significantly worse than solar because of ongoing energy costs for fuel and O&M. Especially if you use ore that is typical rather than the low hanging fruit. A perc module is around 60-120 depending on where it is placed. NPP is 15-60 depending on where its uranium comes from, how it is enriched and whether it uses reprocessing. >> Mining: Ranger ore in 2008 was 0.26% U head grade. Energy: 273 GJ/t U3O8, 322 GJ/tU, including significant development work. (Note that if ore of 0.01% U is envisaged, this would give 1638 TJ/yr, 70 PJ total for mining & milling, hence total 108 PJ for the centrifuge option, thus inputs become 3.3% of output and energy ratio becomes 30.) All Ranger inputs are thermal (it generates own electricity). The Schneider 2010 figure for mining & milling is similar to Rössing. > ??? if things actually do become expensive, welcome to breeder reactors bro You can't start a breeder reactor without fissile material so new capacity still needs just as much (they don't exist so can't say for sure, but about double per GW by fairly generous estimates, actually). Additionally most of the concepts need about 2-10% of annual Beryllium production per reactor. You have to fit something into the industrial capacity of the world before you can start gaslighting about costs that consistently go up or about costs of technologies that don't exist and might maybe start figuring out the hard bit of extraction and refuelling in ten years. Expanding Uranium mining 5x would require processing a billion tonnes of ore per year. For reference Iron Ore production is about 2.5 billion tonnes. You'd need at least 30 million tonnes of sulfuric acid (world production is about 180 million). Then for the reactors you'd need the most of the world supply of chromium. For a PWR you'd need half of the indium, and significant amounts of Zirconium, Cadmium and silver. Reliable Molten salt reactors don't exist and there's one MSR with okay capacity factor, but no information about how kuch noble metal they need is available. This is just to match renewables now mind you, not where they will be when you finally open your mines (which takes years or decades). The idea that Nuclear could scale to match renewables in under 50 years is laughable. Which is why fossil fuel shills butt into every conversation to claim renewables can't work and must be replaced with it.

__pache__ 4y ago
> > 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..
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  So you're both willfully ignorant about the technology you're pushing and unwilling to have it spoon fed to you? Wow.
  - nl 4y ago
    I think this quote from @__pache__ says a lot: > 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.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Of course not. But it's fun watching them have a tantrum when they run out of lies and I've learnt a lot of cool new things from looking up the lies. It also helps distribute reality in contrast to the usual talking points. Most people don't know that nuclear is very limited in scale and actually and quite poor from a land use and energy perspective if it were to be expanded, or that the overwhelming majority of radiation comes from sourcing fuel. I've seen a few bystanders go 'oh shit, you only get 100-500mW per kg of mining?' Or 'wait, none of the breeders have actually done the thing?'
      - nl 4y ago
        I think the nuclear stans (your term, which I like) usually don't know a lot about what they are promoting. Anything a nuclear plant can do a long distance transmission line can do better, with already proven technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity_transmission_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity... I like this quote: For example, a recent report by researchers from the Earth System Research Laboratory published in Nature Climate Change found that a UHVDC transmission line in the US could cut emissions by as much as 80% by harnessing Wyoming’s abundant wind power potential and transporting the electricity to California. https://www.power-technology.com/analysis/chinas-mega-transmission-lines/ https://www.power-technology.com/analysis/chinas-mega-transm...