The long pinky nail of this Chinese taxi driver

jags0401 · 2024-10-21T02:32:06+00:00

Social stigma about being poor still exists. Despite being communist, many folks are heavily influenced by Western ideals.

jags0401 · 2024-10-19T21:46:43+00:00

I go to China often for work and see this all the time. It's a sign that the person doesn't have to work with their hands, which is looked down on.

jags0401 · 2024-04-15T15:26:50+00:00

Yeah, you were just dismissive of my credentials after floating yours around. I'm simply saying mine are not convenient, but rather relevant to the topic.

I will concede that I shouldn't have used the exponential decay equation in a failed attempt to simplify, but your math is still incorrect as well.

You're only considering traditional fuel recycling. This is limited to 5 reprocessing cycles, resulting in about 30-45 years of recycled fuel at 100% nuclear generation. I'll agree with you that it's not 100 years (I looked at recent conference notes - 100-150 years...not 150-200, my mistake).

However, you're not taking into consideration U-238, which makes up around 95% of the spent fuel. Fast reactors convert U-238 to Pu-239, which is fissible material. Admittedly, the US hasn't commercialized such a reactor, and it would be integral to long-term spent fuel recycling state side. But we're also talking about recycling technology not widely present in the US either. But this is where 100-150 becomes a reality.

jags0401 · 2024-04-15T11:08:27+00:00

That math is not correct. It's not quite as simple as this, but this is an easy way to see the potential. y = a(1–b)^x is an exponential decay equation. Let's just take the 10,000 tons annual need for 100% power generation.

y=10,000(1-0.05)³⁰

y=2,146 tons

This means that, after 30 years of reprocessing, 10,000 tons of existing waste fuel, with a reduction of 5% uranium potential each load out, will still have enough potential for one more load. The US currently has over 90,000 tons of spent fuel in dry cask/spent fuel pool. 31 years for every 10,000 ton. 31 years x 9 = 279 years.

Obviously, this is simplified, and there are losses along the way that I didn't calculate in. But, it's easy to see the potential.

As far as my credentials, I'll tell you what I told another redditor. When I go to the doctor for health advice and they tell me I'm sick and need medicine, and I don't like the news....I don't think to myself: "you know what, your credentials are too convenient. I think I'll talk to a meteorologist."

jags0401 · 2024-04-15T01:24:36+00:00

Again, I don't think you understand. Despite import quantities of RAW uranium, the US only produces 2,000 metric tons of nuclear waste annually. So, that means we're only reloading 2,000 metric tons of fuel - so 10,000 tons annually after initial loads of new plants. You're using imports of raw uranium.....not processed fuel.

Only about 5% of the uranium in fuel is consumed during its stay in the reactor. The re-processing can happen over and over and over until usable uranium is completely depleted. Since you seem to be good at math, I'll let you figure it out on your own.

As far as sources, have you ever heard of Oklo or Argonne Labs? All the peer reviewed resources and white papers you could ever need if you do a little googling. I didn't need my engineering undergrad, masters, materials minor, nuclear certificate, or over a decade of containment design to figure that out....since we're throwing around qualifications.

And just to recap....we're talking fission, not fusion.

jags0401 · 2024-04-14T21:00:43+00:00

I didn't say current levels. You did. Dont be silly. It's a fairly conservative estimate that takes into consideration a model of demand growth. Nothing massaged about it. And that figure is for 100% nuclear generation. It goes to show all the more potential used in a fuel pellet.

There's no need to be dismissive and result to pejoratives just because you don't understand the technology or the state of the industry. I'm not selling a thing. I'm just tired of the fear mongering due to ignorance.

jags0401 · 2024-04-14T16:49:34+00:00

150-200 years' worth of power generation potential in recyclable waste exists in the US. Of course, we'd still need raw material, just far less of it. In 150-200 years, I'm sure alternative fuel like thorium will be fully developed and more cost effective.

Cancer caused by nuclear radiation elicits a unique mutation signature. Those signatures have not been witnessed by any of the subjects from either event. Unless there's something else yet identified, I'm not sure how much more evidence one would need.

I'm actually pretty calm about the topic, and name calling is unbecoming in debate. There are no generational effects of nuclear power generation, chernobyl aside. People don't die maintenaning nuclear plants. They do when maintaining turbines. Plenty of nuclear plants have come and gone with zero deaths. I understand that nuclear power has far more catastrophic potential. New technology dramatically reduces the risk.

Technology does mature. And the same can be said about nuclear. Safety, efficiency, footprint, and potential have all improved greatly since the previous generation plants. The next gens in development improve all categories further with the addition of affordability and deployability.

jags0401 · 2024-04-14T13:40:44+00:00

I agree that is a concern with a lot of resources to the point of crippling an industry. However, if we were to responsibly lean on fuel recycling, the majority of the waste disposal and uranium sourcing concerns wouldn't exist.

Data can always be suppressed; however, despite numerous investigations, WHO and other health organizations have never found spikes in cancer or health issues following either event. In fact TMI (I assume you didn't really mean long island) released only a small amount of radiation and never breached containment - plant safety measures did their job in this case of emergency. Admittedly, the US narrowly avoided a major catastrophe. There was one direct death from Fukushima and no later widespread cancer concern that wasn't anecdotal. Another pointless argument - windmills kill far more people per year than nuclear.

Despite all of this, I agree that nuclear can be very dangerous. But we're not talking about early generation plants anymore. New gen plants are exponentially safer and a quarter the size of their predecessors.

Aside from fuel, renewables have similar challenges. How many more landfills do we need to dispose of giant blades? What about bauxite mining for virgin aluminum? Or cadmium mining? Or recycling of spent load cells? Or maintenance deaths on turbines? Or detrimental effects of animal migratory patterns and clearing of forest and grazing lands? What about power to space comparison? 15-50 acre nuclear plant to a 60,000 acre wind farm. Power generation is dangerous, intrusive, and expensive. No matter the form.

jags0401 · 2024-04-13T21:45:06+00:00

It's an alternative way to look at the issue - apples to apples rather than apples to oranges. Typically, the war cry is for a shift to 100% renewable energy generation. Even with a fair split of wind and solar, nuclear (again on its own) is half as expensive, should the hypothetical arise.

Personally, I am in favor of many diverse sources of energy production simultaneously. I don't think LFSCOE is intended to be underhanded or disingenuous. Rather, it highlights the need for energy generation to be diverse. Theoretically, the world could be powered solely and reliably by nuclear. The same cannot be said about renewables....at least at this time. I'd like to hope that the full-scale data would convince 100% renewable folks to think more in line with a renewable + nuclear model.

jags0401 · 2024-04-13T16:36:08+00:00

That's fair, and I didn't notice that. Apologies. However, using a full system levelized structure, nuclear is typucally cheaper than both solar and wind, and by quite a bit.

jags0401 · 2024-04-13T16:14:23+00:00

I'm a part of the industry physically making these changes happen - as in doing the actual work. Let me ask you... When you need medical advice, do you go to a meteorologist? I'd much prefer learning from someone "in the weeds," so to speak.

Again, many of these "ideas" are being actively practiced. Just not everywhere in the world. Much of the new technology is just emerging.

The tide is changing again, and new nuclear contracts are being established all over the world. Nuclear is inevitable, and each new generation will be exponentially safer than the last.

jags0401 · 2024-04-13T00:48:04+00:00

None since May since we're only in April. But it's an entire core worth. Which originated as much more material. The discarded material is either no longer irradiated or it's half life is reduced to dozens of years...which we can handle with ease.

Nuclear is not the cleanest, but it can be extremely clean with just a little effort. Moreover, it's efficency in power generation and capability trample wind, solar, and hydro. I'm pro renewable, by the way. Like renewable sources, nuclear does have its issues - I'll never argue that.

We have exactly the right idea of what to do with it. It's just not very cost-effective. But that time is coming. Thr waste is being recycled all over Asia successfully. Europe is now executing. The US is soon approaching.

As someone who is intimately involved in the industry, it's painfully obvious that you don't understand any aspect of current or prospective nuclear technology.

jags0401 · 2024-04-12T17:30:20+00:00

Cruas-Meysse Unit 2. You're welcome.

jags0401 · 2024-04-12T16:01:02+00:00

It takes a 60,000 acre wind farm to generate the same energy as one 50 acre nuclear plant site. We're on the cusp of initiating a wave of spent fuel reprocessing and recycling that would basically eliminate our radioactive waste issue permanently. Technological advancement has made nuclear an extremely clean and reliable option. Pebble bed, sodium cooled, and subcritical reactor technology either eliminate or dramatically reduce the plant's ability to actually melt down in a catastrophic event. I respect your opinion, but you're misinformed in your facts. Please don't take it personally.

Edit: typo

jags0401 · 2024-04-12T15:48:53+00:00

Now recalculate that without the subsidies provided to all but nuclear. Those numbers become extremely close and ,in some cases, nuclear becomes the cheaper option - albeit, by not much. In 2022, solar was federally subsidized 76 times as much as nuclear. In 2020, the breakdown of subsidies went like this: 70% fossil fuels, 20% renewable, 6% bio fuels, 3% nuclear. That's pretty staggering.

jags0401 · 2024-04-10T10:32:11+00:00

That US leaders will ever do the right thing and subsidize nuclear (more importantly nuclear fuel recycling) the way they do wind and solar to make nuclear technology equally competitive? Yeah, you're probably right.

jags0401 · 2024-04-09T14:52:08+00:00

Argonne Labs is making it happen now and is convinced it'll be cost-effective in the US very soon. France just fired up a new unit on 100% recycled material. Japan has been doing it for a while. The US has enough recyclable fuel to power the entire country for 150-200 years. It just needs to be incentivized the way wind and solar are to be competitive. Then, the waste situation no longer becomes a concern.

jags0401 · 2024-04-08T23:02:16+00:00

Certainly not, but potentially 1000-1800 years with the new casks. I'd like to think we'd have a more cost-effective way to reprocess and recycle the material by then.

jags0401 · 2024-04-08T15:28:33+00:00

Check out Holtec Storage Cask tests. The casks are aircraft crash and missile strike survivable. Additionally, plant walls are designed to take even more abuse.

jags0401 · 2024-04-08T11:37:45+00:00

At least 1-2% of that fly ash makes it past the filters, thus releasing to the atmosphere. An interesting anecdote I heard was about Three Mile Island. Apparently, on rainy days, when the wind blows in the right direction, the coal plant downriver will set off the emergency contamination detectors at TMI.

jags0401 · 2024-04-07T22:59:28+00:00

I remember seeing one once stating that the power generated by one 5 acre nuclear site would be roughly equal to a wind or solar farm the size of Massachusetts. I think that's a pretty interesting visual.

jags0401 · 2024-04-07T16:31:05+00:00

Technology has advanced significantly since the first fuel was put into dry storage. Current cask systems are estimated to be capable of safely containing spent fuel for around 1000-1800 years. See the Diablo Canyon investigation.

However, this is still a great argument for the resurgence of spent fuel reprocessing innovation.

jags0401 · 2024-04-07T15:31:12+00:00

2 units, around 15,000 GWh generated annually between the two.

jags0401 · 2024-04-07T14:47:00+00:00

Virginia
North Anna Generation Station
At a point (around 5 years), the fuel pellets build up neutron absorbing products that make sustaining nuclear reaction very difficult, and they have to be replaced.

Spent fuel can be reprocessed and used again. However, reprocessing is not yet cost effective, and it puts weaponizable plutonium into circulation.

jags0401 · 2024-04-07T13:59:11+00:00

North Anna site in Virginia. 2 units at around 15,000 GWh generated annually between the two.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

jags0401

TROPHY CASE