• schroedingershat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              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