Kusile pollution concerns

[porchrat]

Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel - World Nuclear Association

Mixed oxide (MOX) fuel provides almost 5% of the new nuclear fuel used today. MOX fuel is manufactured from plutonium recovered from used reactor fuel. MOX fuel also provides a means of burning weapons-grade plutonium (from military sources) to produce electricity.

world-nuclear.org

Man I was close that's nuts.

From memory it's something like 20 reactors in France and 16 or so in Japan. Then there's that one in the Netherlands.

Thanks for the link. Will check it out.

 

[porchrat]

It seems you're behind on this. Again not referring to refining and reusing fuel to a limited extent.

No not to a limited extent. You can apparently get the dangerous radiation durations down to 200 years or so on the waste. You're reducing radioactivity by a factor of 100 000 or so at that point, maybe more.

The supposed radiation eating reactors that can function on any fuel till it's depleted (read nothing left but common elements) don't exist. Nobody is using them and nobody is selling them. They're experimental.

Never heard of anything like that and it's not what the rest of us have been talking about. Not sure why you're off on some tangent. Enjoy it though.

Frankly seems like science fiction. Eventually you get such low concentrations of fissile material in the fuel it seems unbelievable that you could sustain a reaction.

Luckily we already have a viable alternative to that that works just fine right now. Hooray!

It's expensive period. It's more expensive than simply mining more fuel and it probably gets more expensive the more you have to refine/enrich it and you're probably going to hit the limit in any case where you can't any more or you have to mix it with new fuel. Yes it's presumably technically possible to use it till it's exhausted but doing so may be prohibitively expensive which would defeat the purpose and make nuclear non-viable.

It's for sure more expensive ... for now. Also not many nations in the world have access to their own uranium they can mine. As I've already mentioned.

It's an approach that's very clearly already working for numerous countries.

 

[Swa]

No not to a limited extent. You can apparently get the dangerous radiation durations down to 200 years or so on the waste. You're reducing radioactivity by a factor of 100 000 or so at that point, maybe more.

It seems you can only reuse up to half and you keep adding new material so your waste still keeps growing. Not what you were selling here.

Never heard of anything like that and it's not what the rest of us have been talking about. Not sure why you're off on some tangent. Enjoy it though.

Frankly seems like science fiction. Eventually you get such low concentrations of fissile material in the fuel it seems unbelievable that you could sustain a reaction.

Luckily we already have a viable alternative to that that works just fine right now. Hooray!

Because that's the usual go-to.

It's for sure more expensive ... for now. Also not many nations in the world have access to their own uranium they can mine. As I've already mentioned.

It's an approach that's very clearly already working for numerous countries.

And the expense would ultimately prove to make it nonviable. I honestly don't see what the fascination is with nuclear as it's the most impractical generation technology we have and the expense just keeps growing instead of decreasing as was hoped.

 

[porchrat]

It seems you can only reuse up to half and you keep adding new material so your waste still keeps growing. Not what you were selling here.

Of course you're still producing waste. Nobody said otherwise. However the amount of high level nuclear waste, and the duration of its lethal radioactivity. Is vastly reduced. As I said, we're talking an order of 100 000 here. That's not limited. That's an extremely significant reduction in waste levels, and the severity of that waste.

Because that's the usual go-to.

yea still not sure what you're on about. You keep living in the realm of science fiction. Have fun darling. The rest of us will just keep being impressed with real technology happening right now.

And the expense would ultimately prove to make it nonviable. I honestly don't see what the fascination is with nuclear as it's the most impractical generation technology we have and the expense just keeps growing instead of decreasing as was hoped.

It's not non-viable. It's being used right now all over the planet.

There is clearly a use-case for it.

 

[Lupus]

Of course you're still producing waste. Nobody said otherwise. However the amount of high level nuclear waste, and the duration of its lethal radioactivity. Is vastly reduced. As I said, we're talking an order of 100 000 here. That's not limited. That's an extremely significant reduction in waste levels, and the severity of that waste.


yea still not sure what you're on about. You keep living in the realm of science fiction. Have fun darling. The rest of us will just keep being impressed with real technology happening right now.


It's not non-viable. It's being used right now all over the planet.

There is clearly a use-case for it.

I'm also not sure where he gets it's the most impractical? I mean has he seen wind and solar that literally require the right weather conditions? Also nuclear power has the highest EAF of any power source we have, the fuel used is not changed for almost 2 years, the waste is contained and maintained.
It's only expensive and impractical because of the likes of Greenpeace and other greenies who kept butting heads with nuclear say it's bad mkay. In the entire 70 years of nuclear power there have been 3 incidents and 1 was actually more of a nothingburger.
Yet we have millions dying thanks to cancers caused by coal power plants, we're going to have vast fields of old wind turbines soon, we're going to have solar panels filling those up as well. Plus we're needing to mine to create batteries capable of storing power?
So once again where is nuclear the most impractical? Is it cause he still somehow believes in the green goo and yellow barrels?

 

[Swa]

Of course you're still producing waste. Nobody said otherwise. However the amount of high level nuclear waste, and the duration of its lethal radioactivity. Is vastly reduced. As I said, we're talking an order of 100 000 here. That's not limited. That's an extremely significant reduction in waste levels, and the severity of that waste.

Not how I read it. You still require regular fuel so you're simply adding to the amount you have to recycle. And in the quantities stated you're also not going to reach levels of 100 000 or even remotely near that. For a single batch perhaps but then you've added multiple times that. No, it does appear to be as limited as I said.

yea still not sure what you're on about. You keep living in the realm of science fiction. Have fun darling. The rest of us will just keep being impressed with real technology happening right now.

You're not arguing with me here.

It's not non-viable. It's being used right now all over the planet.

There is clearly a use-case for it.

See above.

 

[porchrat]

Not how I read it. You still require regular fuel so you're simply adding to the amount you have to recycle. And in the quantities stated you're also not going to reach levels of 100 000 or even remotely near that. For a single batch perhaps but then you've added multiple times that. No, it does appear to be as limited as I said.


You're not arguing with me here.


See above.

It's all good man. This is clearly a process you've read little into and have a limited understanding of. We can just leave it here. I'm tired of constantly correcting you.

I'd suggest just Google the technology to get an idea of what it's all about.

 

[Lupus]

It's all good man. This is clearly a process you've read little into and have a limited understanding of. We can just leave it here. I'm tired of constantly correcting you.

I'd suggest just Google the technology to get an idea of what it's all about.

Yup I'm out as well

 

[semaphore]

Yup I'm out as well

He'll keep going on about nuclear is terrible while benefiting from it indirectly. Unless he's converted his entire house to DC and is running off of car batteries at this point.

 

[konfab]

It seems you can only reuse up to half and you keep adding new material so your waste still keeps growing. Not what you were selling here.


Because that's the usual go-to.


And the expense would ultimately prove to make it nonviable. I honestly don't see what the fascination is with nuclear as it's the most impractical generation technology we have and the expense just keeps growing instead of decreasing as was hoped.

You know what is an impractical source of energy? One that doesn't work:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1716165064955146375

Texas has an entire Eskom's worth of wind power installed. On the 20th of October 2023, it produced 1.4GW.

 

[Swa]

I'm also not sure where he gets it's the most impractical? I mean has he seen wind and solar that literally require the right weather conditions? Also nuclear power has the highest EAF of any power source we have, the fuel used is not changed for almost 2 years, the waste is contained and maintained.
It's only expensive and impractical because of the likes of Greenpeace and other greenies who kept butting heads with nuclear say it's bad mkay. In the entire 70 years of nuclear power there have been 3 incidents and 1 was actually more of a nothingburger.
Yet we have millions dying thanks to cancers caused by coal power plants, we're going to have vast fields of old wind turbines soon, we're going to have solar panels filling those up as well. Plus we're needing to mine to create batteries capable of storing power?
So once again where is nuclear the most impractical? Is it cause he still somehow believes in the green goo and yellow barrels?

And this shows the extent of your thinking. You keep staying stuck on the either-or fallacy. SA is actually a perfect place for it as we either have a lot of sunshine or a lot of wind but rarely a lack of both and there's storage as I said. The technology is improving daily to where PV can last 20 years with 80% efficiency still. Most of the material can be recycled so you're actually creating a secondary industry.

Nuclear is good only for baseload as by the time you've ramped up your production the peaks are over and vice versa. Countries that have gone all nuclear have only been able to do so because they can still import their shortfall or they've oversupplied. Don't blame others for the costs. Initially governments did not reckon with the full cost of cleanup and containment hoping there would be better and cheaper ways in future to handle it. That did not happen and the costs only increased.

 

[Swa]

He'll keep going on about nuclear is terrible while benefiting from it indirectly. Unless he's converted his entire house to DC and is running off of car batteries at this point.

That is a fallacious argument.

You know what is an impractical source of energy? One that doesn't work:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1716165064955146375

Texas has an entire Eskom's worth of wind power installed. On the 20th of October 2023, it produced 1.4GW.

Produced or delivered? There is a difference. Also don't know much about Texas but from what I know it's not a very good place for wind. SA however is.

 

[konfab]

Produced or delivered? There is a difference. Also don't know much about Texas but from what I know it's not a very good place for wind. SA however is.

Produced.

And Texas has better wind resources than South Africa:





https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data/122

https://web.csag.uct.ac.za/~lennard/WASA3/High-Resolution%20Wind%20Resource%20Map%20for%20South%20Africa%202020.pdf

And just think about it logically, do you think 37GW of wind would be installed in a place that has poor wind capacity?

 

[Swa]

Produced.

And Texas has better wind resources than South Africa:

View attachment 1605978



https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data/122


View attachment 1605976

https://web.csag.uct.ac.za/~lennard/WASA3/High-Resolution%20Wind%20Resource%20Map%20for%20South%20Africa%202020.pdf

And just think about it logically, do you think 37GW of wind would be installed in a place that has poor wind capacity?

Not from what I heard. You also have to take into account the practicality of what can be used and availability. Available location also does matter. But you're also suffering from the either-or mentality. The graph on face value proves what I said as the days wind isn't available solar is with a much smaller installed capacity.

 

[semaphore]

That is a fallacious argument.

You made the statement years ago.

Now you seem to be an expert on nuclear energy.

 

[Swa]

You made the statement years ago.

Now you seem to be an expert on nuclear energy.

I never claimed I wasn't. Of course I'm "benefiting" from it as I'm using it, under duress, but just because someone benefits from something doesn't mean their criticisms against it aren't valid and that we can't benefit more if it wasn't the focus.

 

[Johnatan56]

Produced.

And Texas has better wind resources than South Africa:

View attachment 1605978



https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data/122


View attachment 1605976

https://web.csag.uct.ac.za/~lennard/WASA3/High-Resolution%20Wind%20Resource%20Map%20for%20South%20Africa%202020.pdf

And just think about it logically, do you think 37GW of wind would be installed in a place that has poor wind capacity?

Global Wind Atlas

The Global Wind Atlas is a free, web-based application developed to help policymakers, planners, and investors identify high-wind areas for wind power generation virtually anywhere in the world, and then perform preliminary calculations.

globalwindatlas.info

The average top 10% are similar, but not the top of the mean, and South Africa is near double the size, which includes that you can build wind further apart from each other, most of Texas wind generation is all concentrated in the same area.

Can also look at individual areas, like WC since major city there.

But generally do not build them in Gauteng.

You know what is an impractical source of energy? One that doesn't work:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1716165064955146375

Texas has an entire Eskom's worth of wind power installed. On the 20th of October 2023, it produced 1.4GW.

And this is missing how solar picked up during that time, no one said only wind power generation at any point in time in any grid (and one should avoid to ever have all power from one source).

 

[wingnut771]

View attachment 1610529

Global Wind Atlas

The Global Wind Atlas is a free, web-based application developed to help policymakers, planners, and investors identify high-wind areas for wind power generation virtually anywhere in the world, and then perform preliminary calculations.

globalwindatlas.info

View attachment 1610531

The average top 10% are similar, but not the top of the mean, and South Africa is near double the size, which includes that you can build wind further apart from each other, most of Texas wind generation is all concentrated in the same area.

Can also look at individual areas, like WC since major city there.
View attachment 1610541
But generally do not build them in Gauteng.
View attachment 1610543


And this is missing how solar picked up during that time, no one said only wind power generation at any point in time in any grid (and one should avoid to ever have all power from one source).

Eskom grid can’t handle new renewable energy yet

Gauteng, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal are currently the only provinces that have capacity for new renewable energy to be added to the grid

mg.co.za

Real reason for Eskom grid shortages

Eskom’s grid capacity shortages are not due to a lack of money but rather ideological tension between the private and public sectors.

dailyinvestor.com