Kusile pollution concerns

leon.davibe said:
The intel 4004 was academic before it was real 2300 transistors 1971

1989 486 1.2-1.6m transistors count 18 years later

20 years later 2009 core i7 860 transistor count 774m

14 years later 14900 core i9 2.95B transistor count

Never underestimate academics and the rate of advancement
Click to expand...

Never underestimate human stupidity, self interest and greed, either.
 
Lupus said:
Yeah 100 000 years for the earth is fast

What Happens AFTER Global Warming?

What happens to our heat-trapping fossil fuel emissions after we release them, how long will they persist, and what might life be like in a warming - and then cooling - world?
www.nature.com
www.theguardian.com

Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible – IPCC’s starkest warning yet

Report warns temperatures likely to rise by more than 1.5C bringing widespread extreme weather
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Irreversible

Yet you're panicking about waste we actively trace, mark and know about, plus even 70 years of nuclear power all the high level nuclear waste is a football field.
Click to expand...

And of course you know every single barrel is accounted for, location know, etc. ,etc etc ...
 
elf_lord_ZC5 said:
And of course you know every single barrel is accounted for, location know, etc. ,etc etc ...
Click to expand...
Yes actually they do, it's heavily regulated. Plus as stated they aren't normal barrels, they are massive dry casks, think of concrete silos but filled with lead, glass and spent uranium.
 
Lupus said:
Yes actually they do, it's heavily regulated. Plus as stated they aren't normal barrels, they are massive dry casks, think of concrete silos but filled with lead, glass and spent uranium.
Click to expand...

Lovely - was not aware that concrete was unbreakable and impervious to degradation.
 
elf_lord_ZC5 said:
Lovely - was not aware that concrete was unbreakable and impervious to degradation.
Click to expand...
spent_fuel_canister.jpg

Cutaway-diagram-storage-cask-fuel-canister-assemblies.jpg

1697778583746.jpeg
behaelteranlage-3.jpg

Look at those scary yellow barrels full of goo. Also really easy to get lost right?
 
Swa said:
Nobody is denying that used fuel can be used again, to a degree.
Click to expand...
Actually it can be used several times over.

Swa said:
We're still waiting for these radiation eating reactors and then a way to turn storage sites into greenfield status. It's still proof of concept with no commercially sold reactor on the horizon.
Click to expand...
Actually many, if not most, of the current day nuclear reactors are capable of using this fuel.

They need to be reconfigured a little to use it (you need a couple more rods in the chamber etc., but it's not major), but it isn't like humanity needs some special new kind of reactor we don't currently have.

In fact many of the reactors, even in countries like the USA, which doesn't have a policy of recycling their fuel, are already fully capable of using this fuel. Only reason many countries aren't currently using it is because it's more expensive as a process than just using natural uranium. Only countries like Japan, that don't have easy access to natural uranium, are leaning heavily into the recycled fuel angle.

This isn't some futuristic sci-fi. It's all useable now.
 
porchrat said:
Actually it can be used several times over.


Actually many, if not most, of the current day nuclear reactors are capable of using this fuel.

They need to be reconfigured a little to use it (you need a couple more rods in the chamber etc., but it's not major), but it isn't like humanity needs some special new kind of reactor we don't currently have.

In fact many of the reactors, even in countries like the USA, which doesn't have a policy of recycling their fuel, are already fully capable of using this fuel. Only reason many countries aren't currently using it is because it's more expensive as a process than just using natural uranium. Only countries like Japan, that don't have easy access to natural uranium, are leaning heavily into the recycled fuel angle.

This isn't some futuristic sci-fi. It's all useable now.
Click to expand...
France is reusing the fuel as well, in fact more so then Japan. Also recycling is expensive compared to just mining new uranium :-). But yeah places are starting to recycle it as mining is becoming more costly.
 
Lupus said:
France is reusing the fuel as well, in fact more so then Japan. Also recycling is expensive compared to just mining new uranium :). But yeah places are starting to recycle it as mining is becoming more costly.
Click to expand...
I know France has traditionally done a significant amount of Japan's recycling, though that too is changing as Japan builds bigger facilities.
 
Few sacrifices are always needed for the greater good. 680 is nothing compared to the 60 million lively hoods if they could just understand that during COVID 2 years that destroyed so much. Now everyone is paying for stupid governments and look COVID suddenly just disappeared? What a load of crap.
 
Lupus said:
I mean I know we've gone "nuclear" but not on the scale we need :) and if we did have a compentent government I've got a feeling we'd have followed Germany :-(
Click to expand...
The problem is that decisions to build new power plants are politically driven.

SA is uniquely positioned to have a mix of energy production. We "had" the skills and we have plenty of coal, uranium, natural gas, wind and sunlight. Yet here we are.
 
porchrat said:
Actually it can be used several times over.


Actually many, if not most, of the current day nuclear reactors are capable of using this fuel.

They need to be reconfigured a little to use it (you need a couple more rods in the chamber etc., but it's not major), but it isn't like humanity needs some special new kind of reactor we don't currently have.

In fact many of the reactors, even in countries like the USA, which doesn't have a policy of recycling their fuel, are already fully capable of using this fuel. Only reason many countries aren't currently using it is because it's more expensive as a process than just using natural uranium. Only countries like Japan, that don't have easy access to natural uranium, are leaning heavily into the recycled fuel angle.

This isn't some futuristic sci-fi. It's all useable now.
Click to expand...
Yes we do. None of the current reactors can reuse the fuel to the degree that's being touted. And you hit the nail with cost. Nuclear is just getting more expensive the longer it's running. The majority of the cleanup cost is always deferred as it's hoped there will be a way to deal with it in future but this never happens. Then there's this. One might actually be forgiven from thinking this is Medupi and Kusile being referred to. We are on the brink of another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.

It's actually funny. The nuclear pundits keep referring to cost while criticising renewables. Yet there was a study done where they found renewables with storage to be the cheapest with the cost continuing to go down as well as that of cleanup and recycling.
 
Swa said:
Very safe
Click to expand...
Actually read those... First page is 90% weapons, research and medical waste not power plants.
Also renewables are not cheaper in reality, hence why the consumers actually end up paying more. This might help you understand, but I doubt it, I mean you pasted a search for nuclear waste leaking and none of them were related to power.
thundersaidenergy.com

Renewables: the levelized cost paradox? - Thunder Said Energy

Renewable heavy power grids are subject to a levelized cost paradox, where ramping low cost supplies causes inflation as utilization falls?
thundersaidenergy.com thundersaidenergy.com
www.forbes.com

The Paradox of Declining Renewable Costs and Rising Electricity Prices

Renewable energy is becoming a larger share of our energy mix. Their costs are falling but retail electricity prices are rising. Both can be true for now, but future changes in technology and market rules can reduce the price and system stresses of higher renewable penetration in the U.S.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Wind operators dropping out of the UK
www.reuters.com

Offshore wind drops out of UK auction on costs, risking climate goals

Offshore wind developers stayed away from Britain's latest renewable energy auction on Friday, arguing the price offered by the government did not reflect rising industry costs, something which is hampering wind projects globally.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Germany extends coal
www.wionews.com

So much for green agenda: Germany demolishes wind farm to expand coal field

Even as the West shoves its green climate agenda down the throat of the developing world, it itself keeps on exhibiting sheer hypocrisy as it seeks to widen its dependence on fossil fuels.
www.wionews.com www.wionews.com
 
Last edited:
Swa said:
Yes we do. None of the current reactors can reuse the fuel to the degree that's being touted. And you hit the nail with cost. Nuclear is just getting more expensive the longer it's running. The majority of the cleanup cost is always deferred as it's hoped there will be a way to deal with it in future but this never happens. Then there's this. One might actually be forgiven from thinking this is Medupi and Kusile being referred to. We are on the brink of another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.

It's actually funny. The nuclear pundits keep referring to cost while criticising renewables. Yet there was a study done where they found renewables with storage to be the cheapest with the cost continuing to go down as well as that of cleanup and recycling.
Click to expand...
My man, you've now shifted the goalposts from "We're still waiting for these radiation eating reactors" to the mercurial statement that "None of the current reactors can reuse the fuel to degree that's being touted".

The truth is that there are plenty of reactors on this planet right now perfectly capable of using this fuel. I'm sorry that you didn't know that, but it remains true nonetheless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X