3 ms·

Just gonna double down on the 'it's so dense' myth huh? Do it with a real fuel cycle, real turbine efficiencies and stop trying to conflate the fertile content

Just gonna double down on the 'it's so dense' myth huh? Do it with a real fuel cycle, real turbine efficiencies and stop trying to conflate the fertile content with the fissile. Here's a hint to get you started: the reactor fleet uses about 67500 tonnes of raw Uranium and produces about 2650TWh each year. New reactors are about 1.8x the average and most SMR proposals are worse. The world produced 760GWh of batteries from around 75,000 tonnes of Lithium. Also note that 2650TWh / 760GWh is 3500 which is less than the number of cycles an LFP battery will last.

lazide 4y ago
If you’re going to throw out bullshit numbers, don’t be surprised when you get called on it. If de-rating, show your math. Which you didn’t. This whole thing is hilarious anyway, as I’m far from a nuclear advocate. Just pointing out you’re not actually telling the truth while going on your rant. And it’s all clearly apples to oranges with no sense. Lithium is not destroyed when used in these battery systems, it can be recycled indefinitely if we cared. It also doesn’t produce any actual power, it’s storage. Uranium is burned/fissioned, and actually is gone. And actually produces power.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Wow. You got triggered hard by that. My comment was in response to the pearl clutching over the imagined requirement of Lithium mining as a component of a system that generates electricity from wind and solar. If we take diurnal storage being provided by lithium batteries as a given, then a VRE system producing 1kW >95% of the time using existing commercial technology requires roughly 1kg of lithium in 6-12kWh of batteries which needs to be recycled or replaced every 12-20 years. A system producing 1kW of electricity from fission 85% of the time using existing commercial technology requires fuel made from 1kg of mined Uranium. The Uranium needs replacing at least every 6 years. You can calculate this easily from burnup (25-60MWd/kg thermal), thermal efficiency (30-38%), and the Uranium required to make a unit of fuel (~8kg per kg of fuel). Hence the pearl clutching is revealed as disingenuous nonsense and the proposed alternative to the terrors of Lithium mining is revealed to be worse, and why you are triggered.

lazide 4y ago

If you’re going to throw out bullshit numbers, don’t be surprised when you get called on it. If de-rating, show your math. Which you didn’t. This whole thing is hilarious anyway, as I’m far from a nuclear advocate. Just pointing out you’re not actually telling the truth while going on your rant. And it’s all clearly apples to oranges with no sense. Lithium is not destroyed when used in these battery systems, it can be recycled indefinitely if we cared. It also doesn’t produce any actual power, it’s storage. Uranium is burned/fissioned, and actually is gone. And actually produces power.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Wow. You got triggered hard by that. My comment was in response to the pearl clutching over the imagined requirement of Lithium mining as a component of a system that generates electricity from wind and solar. If we take diurnal storage being provided by lithium batteries as a given, then a VRE system producing 1kW >95% of the time using existing commercial technology requires roughly 1kg of lithium in 6-12kWh of batteries which needs to be recycled or replaced every 12-20 years. A system producing 1kW of electricity from fission 85% of the time using existing commercial technology requires fuel made from 1kg of mined Uranium. The Uranium needs replacing at least every 6 years. You can calculate this easily from burnup (25-60MWd/kg thermal), thermal efficiency (30-38%), and the Uranium required to make a unit of fuel (~8kg per kg of fuel). Hence the pearl clutching is revealed as disingenuous nonsense and the proposed alternative to the terrors of Lithium mining is revealed to be worse, and why you are triggered.