3 ms·

> > Was I wrong about something ? > Extremely. Can you concisely explain this without writing a book obfuscating your arguments..? > You can't start a breede

> > 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
        There are probably places where a NPP is the best and cheapest choice to reduce emissions and worth the downsides, but not many and forcing them into places with excellent renewable resources is idiotic. Unless and until the budget and plans for around 5TW net of renewables is allocated, then starting any new nuclear is just a way of delaying the death of fossil fuels.

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
      There are probably places where a NPP is the best and cheapest choice to reduce emissions and worth the downsides, but not many and forcing them into places with excellent renewable resources is idiotic. Unless and until the budget and plans for around 5TW net of renewables is allocated, then starting any new nuclear is just a way of delaying the death of fossil fuels.