• schroedingershat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    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
      5
      ·
      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
        8
        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

          • 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.