Lightbringer (06-01-2023)
The government says it's better:
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/n...not-even-close
The experts say it's safer...
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/f...1104091117.pdf
Now, I can go get some greentard sites that blather on without a single fragment of evidence...
https://www.ecoideaz.com/expert-corn...-energy-source
https://close-to-nature.org/solar-en...nuclear-energy
But on the whole nuclear produces the power we need safely. Solar doesn't produce the power we need, can't produce the power we need, and isn't particularly safe in doing it.
Lightbringer (06-01-2023)
Stop lying to yourself....you keep "engaging" me due to some obsessive need to be shown to be right in an open forum on some topics. Thing is, I can cut through your anecdotal BS and stay focused on the FACTS that you can't logically or factually refute. Also, unlike most, I can admit when I'm wrong on a point.
NOW HERE YOU ARE CORRECT...IT WAS NOT ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS BUT YOUR COUSIN THAT HAS RETIRED. I WAS WRONG ON THAT POINT, STAND CORRECTED AND APOLOGIZE.
That being said, you claim to teach from 7th grade to calculus. So that covers grade school, high school, college. So at 57, you'd have to be specific as to what kids from what education level went on to work at nuke plant facilities. What were their positions or jobs? Ages? See, your statements raise more questions that placate your assertions.
And despite all of that, you've offered NOTHING of documented supported items that factually or logically refute what I've posted throughout this thread. If you've got a new take on what has previously transpired in the chronology of the post, let's have it. Otherwise, you're just wasting time.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
do you even stop think things through before you post? You're so desperate to prove me wrong, you stupidly make my case.
You haven't factually or logically refuted anything I've posted. Instead you post a Dept of Nuclear Energy site (so now MAGA mooks are trusting the government), which essentially just gives the standard PR blather WITHOUT addressing all the things I've sourced throughout this discussion. What the hell do you think they were going to say? An honest, objective pro/con debate? That's like Texaco providing evidence against off shore drilling in a complete honest and objective way.
The IAEA article is a cute attempt at slight-of-hand....claiming that solar is more dangerous because it depends on mined materials. I noted that junior didn't take into account how recyclable solar panels are. Look it up, because I'm damned tired of doing your homework properly for you. When was the last time you read/heard the word "recyclable" when discussing nuke plants?
But what takes the cake is that the "greentard" sites actually provide a fact based, objective "pro/con" listings for nuke vs. solar....hell, one even says this: In general, when it comes to the debate on solar vs nuclear power, there is no clear consensus since each one draws their own conclusion. .... However, one thing’s clear: both solar and nuclear power sources are much better for the environment than fossil fuels.
I may not agree with the conclusion, and they do lean towards nuke power in that respect....but at LEAST they give food for thought.
But both of your "greentard" sites skim over the problem of nuke waste...the billion dollar industry surrounding that and how recently in some areas around the globe old storage sites have to be replaced. (and who pays for that?)
So once again, you FAIL to make your case. Instead you just give different versions of the SOS you've been shoveling all night (as with your final sentence). You're just a nuke power wonk on parrot mode....thinking if you can say it repeatedly or in different forms you prove your case.
Sorry toodles, but that dog of yours won't hunt. I'll catch you doing the SOS tomorrow. Later.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
Solar panels are recyclable, but the cost to do so is so prohibitive it isn't worth doing it.
We Recycle Solar spends up to $25 per panel in processing costs to yield between $2 and $4 in value from aluminum, copper, lead, glass, silver and silicon. OEMs have lightweighted and used less valuable metals in newer generations of more-efficient products, which is great news from the manufacturing and consumer perspectives but not for recyclers
https://resource-recycling.com/recyc...ions.%E2%80%9D
Thus, the idea that solar is renewable is a farce. The panels only last 20 to 30 years at most then can only be recycled at a major net loss. Compare that to nuclear where you can manufacture new fuel (Thorium 233 to Uranium 233 as one example) and the cost of recycling is less than the worth of material recovered. Also, the amount of recycled material is both in weight and volume a tiny fraction of what the equivalent energy production by solar would be (at most thousand of tons versus tens to hundreds of millions)
Nuclear waste is hardly a problem given all the necessary steps and materials have already been worked out. The problem is, once again, ignorance and fear--like you keep demonstrating. Spent fuel that has decayed to a steady state can easily be contained in drums designed to hold it for, well, nearly forever. The small amount of waste heat generated from the decay of long-lived fission fragments and radioactives, all alpha and beta emitters is easily managed, and the radiation given of is negligible.
Life isn't safe, Taich. In the end, everybody dies.
The town made out big with the nuke plant.
It could have been radiated by an accident..
It could also been flattened by a tidal wave as well. With no nuke plant.
Some people wouldn't take the chance.
Others would and have.
At the end of the day, even if things go perfectly, you're not going to live much more than 100 years anyway.
And who the hell would want to?
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson, 1775
Religion....is the opiate of the people. Karl Marx, 1848
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Kris Kristofferson, 1969
leaningright (06-02-2023)
NiftyNiblick (06-02-2023)
This is hilarious, a rube that thinks people with penises can be women is calling someone else a liar. You can find a time of people saying just what I said.
Mature adults? That leaves you out. See you could have addressed these issues differently but you had to be an asshole so you get what you get.
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" - George Carlin
"Education is a system of imposed ignorance" - Noam Chomsky
"Leftists actually think everyone is as stupid as a leftist." - Yakuda
"No, Trump isn't a fascist, tatt boy." - moon
Actually, the "farce" is how you continuously demonstrate your wonk-ish myopia in the material you supply to bolster your case. Here's what followed your excerpt;
In 2017, Washington state became the first state to pass a bill establishing an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for solar panels. Starting in July 2023, the law will require manufacturers to fund collection and recycling of the panels.
In California, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has considered adding solar panels to its electronics recycling program. The department is working with other branches of state government to draft a paper, expected to be released this year, on end-of-life management of PV panels.
In the meantime, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) late last year approved regulations (which were based on 2015 legislation) classifying PV modules as a universal waste, not a hazardous waste, easing regulatory burdens associated with collecting and shipping them. That being said, the panels are still considered hazardous if testing shows they exceed hazardous metals concentration limits in California or federal law, and universal waste handlers are required to do that testing when they discard the panels.
Essentially, the problems with recycling solar panels is political, not economical. It just takes the social/political will.
But recycling spent nuke fuel is cheaper? On what planet? Here's a site that details recycling of nuke plant materials: https://world-nuclear.org/informatio...lear-fuel.aspx
NOTE THE FOLLOWING from this site; In mid-2006 a report3 by the Boston Consulting Group for Areva and based on proprietary Areva information showed that recycling used fuel in the USA using the COEX aqueous process (see Developments of PUREX below) would be economically competitive with direct disposal of used fuel. A $12 billion, 2500 t/yr plant was considered, with total capital expenditure of $16 billion for all related aspects. This would have the benefit of greatly reducing demand on space at the planned Yucca Mountain repository.
But what's REALLY scary is this 2007 report to Congress, that states in no uncertain terms that it is cheaper to store spent nuke fuel than recycle it: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...uclearfuel.pdf
Your last paragraph is (once again) a rehash of your supposition and conjecture laden clap trap. You need a new act, son.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
Post #37 puts forth fact based realities of what you won't address or deal with on this subject. That's why you parrot what I consider one of history's most stupid ass retorts.
Let me be clear; just because there is risk in everything we do DOES NOT justify continuing an action or process THAT HAS PROVEN THROUGH HISTORY NOT TO BE THE CHEAP, SAFE SYSTEM IT'S TOUTED TO BE.
"We'll there's been no Chernobyl here or radiation poisoning/mutations like a sci-fi movie, so it's all good." You wouldn't buy a car or a house with similar problems!
Your town LUCKED OUT when you were there. As the material I sourced showed, that luck is starting to run out.
Your last 2 sentences are irrational and irrelevant. No justification.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
translation: Yaky cannot logically or factually (much less rationally) defend or support his assertions and position, as the chronology of the posts shows.
Once again, I reduced him to a sputtering, fuming MAGA troll. No point in putting up with his nonsense, so I'll ignore him for a month or so,
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
So, what you're in effect saying is that the state had to step in and force solar panel recycling because it isn't economically feasible. I'm sure in turn, the manufacturers raised prices on their panels to cover that cost 20 or 30 years down the road. The problem is economics. Recycling solar panels isn't cost effective. So, government stepped in and forced manufacturers to recycle.
As for nuclear fuel, even your quote above shows it's economical. Sure, the one plant to do it is expensive, but once built it will recoup the cost through recovery of fissionable material and other materials that can be used, along with reducing the cost of storage of leftover waste that isn't recyclable.
As for the CBO, their track record on scoring costs is abysimal.
Bookmarks