• schroedingershat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’ve now switched from closed cycle to using the dregs via reprocessing. Entirely unrelated concepts (and reprocessing is also ecologically awful and uneconomical in addition to not meaningfully reducing mining).

    In reality all solar panels in large parts of europe built since 2015 will be recycled.

    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

    A soup of random plutonium isotopes isn’t usable for MOX. MOX-2 has never happened.

    You cannot even keep your bizarre straw man tangent straight.

    • AbsolutelyNotABot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Entirely unrelated concepts

      A closed cycle require reprocessing, how else would you recover fissile content in exhaust fuel? Magic?

      in addition to not meaningfully reducing mining Because of the low fissile content. Still 20% net reduction in virgin uranium

      In reality all solar panels in large parts of europe built since 2015 will be recycled

      This is a fallacy called Texas sharpshooter. We’ll know if they will be recycled in 20 years, how can we verify this now? How can this be an argument of any value?

      A soup of random plutonium isotopes isn’t usable for MOX This sentence doesn’t make sense whatsoever, MOX-2 isn’t even a thing that exist, you’ve just made it up…

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a fallacy called Texas sharpshooter. We’ll know if they will be recycled in 20 years, how can we verify this now? How can this be an argument of any value?

        No, because there is a specific piece of legislation mandating it, a clear well costed industrial plan, and idle recycling facilities waiting for panels to finally wear out.

        What you’ve done is the “nothing can ever start happening more than it is now” fallacy which nuke shills love to roll out.

        Not understanding that bombarding Pu240 and Pu239 with neutrons produces different isotope ratios than U238 is a very good way of demonstrating that you actually understand reprocessing /s

        • AbsolutelyNotABot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          idle recycling facilities waiting for panels to finally wear out

          If they’re idle why can’t reprocess actual panels ending in waste fields?

          Also there’s a big flaw in tour argument. Tokyo protocol was a specific piece of legislation, reduction emissions plant etc. So was that Paris agreement And many others Have we solved climate change?

          Not understanding that bombarding Pu240 and Pu239 with neutrons produces different isotope ratios than U238

          I beg you to read more than the first paragraph of Wikipedia. Pu239 is fissile and is burned in place of the U235 content of enriched uranium. Pu240 neutron capture and become Pu241, which is also fissile. The matrix in most cases is still U238 usually from tailings.

          When I say that what you say doesn’t make sense is not an insult, literally, your words haven’t a complete sense.

          • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not every neutron capture causes fission. And throwing a random soup of fissile and fertile elements in a hole is how you get a meltdown or no reaction – they’re not fungible. Please stop digging your ignorance-hole deeper.

            Maybe consider that PV panels aren’t kdentical and the ones built after the WESS are not the same? But there goes the nuance-allergy nuke shills have again.

            Also this is all an incredibly stupid tangent in the first place, as renewables are renewable so long as they’re at least as recyclable as the nuclear plant. Yet again demonstrating the inability to push over your own straw man.

            Now you’re also trying the condescending from a position of ignorance tactic on top of that. Stupid and ignorant or smug, pick one.