Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds

It said a lot more than that. Obviously, the DOE knows that the last thing they need is 6-7 times more volume of waste. And you want all this crap that has to be maintained for hundreds of thousands of years for the most expensive, and most potentially dangerous power source on the planet.

 

While you frantically search for an article to tell you what to think about this I'll give you some physics to also address.

The energy of a radioactive mass is subject to 1/d^2. This means if you double your distance from the mass, the strength of the energy is quartered. The volume of the mass is also subject to square cube law. The volume of a mass increases by the cube of the scale factor, but the area only increases by the square. With a radioactive mass, the only particles that hit you are emitted from the surface. The rest are absorbed within the mass. This is why radioactive materials heat up.

So when you increase the volume of something with low radioactivity you actually decrease your exposure to the energy of decay.

 

And the CDC knows that the volume of a radioactive mass is not important. It's the amount of becquerels that's important.

7x increase in volume is no concern. A 5 order of magnitude decrease in radioactivity is what you should be arguing for.

 

Most potentially dangerous? Is this like the potential 10 feet of sea level rise and polar bears potentially being extinct in 12 years?

 

Watch 1/d^2 in action.

https://youtube.com/shorts/cGVMQluy4p0?si=s6ke6PwwoVfp1BnO

Why isn't the counter flipping out until she puts it directly on the plate?

Inverse square law is why.

 

Half life of fiestaware? 4.5 billion years

Radioactivity of fiestaware? Easily absorbed by some sheets of paper.

 

You are misreading the article. I would urge you to read it in full. Reprocessing low level radioactive waste with half-lives of hundreds of thousands of years, doesn’t convert all the waste to high level waste. There is still plenty of low level wastes with half lives of hundreds of thousands of years. All of these man-made radioactive isotopes require varying disposal techniques. Reprocessing makes a bad situation worse. There were some nightmare scenarios as far back as Carter, with catastrophic reprocessing research at the Idaho labs, and the reprocessing remains a very risky proposition.

 

Globally, nuclear energy is the next big thing.
Building the Global Nuclear Energy Order Book
By Niko McMurray and David Gattie
The U.S. can finish what it started: ensuring the deployment of new nuclear projects will provide clean, reliable and affordable energy globally. . . .

 

You realize you said that backwards? We process gen 3 waste to remove the usable energy for use in gen 4 reactors. This takes high level waste and turns it into low level waste. You know those rods sitting in pools you referenced earlier? The ones that have to be kept cool to prevent a runaway? This is the high level waste they want to process into low level waste.

The typical complaint, which you haven't even mentioned yet, is that the ability to do this allows the processor to collect & refine weapons grade plutonium. The primary reason our nuclear waste isn't processed is to limit nuclear weapon proliferation. (Side note, you know how to keep a critical mass of weapons grade plutonium from going critical? Increase its volume.)

Let's take a close look at your reference material to see who actually read it and who didn't.

First of all, the material was produced by the union of concerned scientists, not the DOE as you alluded in post #901. This is from their "about us" page.

Yeah, they aren't against processing high level nuclear waste because it would increase the volume of low level waste. Low level waste is much more harmless. They know that. They are against it to prevent the ability to produce weapons grade plutonium. France made a good point that reusing the waste makes a lot of sense. If the primary complaint of the union of scientists is about the volume of low level waste, they don't have much of an argument.

This is what the DOE says:

Wow. That's the opposite of what the union of concerned scientists says.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Every time you reference long half-lives and large volumes you make that abundantly clear. Not once have you even attempted to show any evidence at all that low level waste is worse than high level waste. That's because it's not.

If you're worried about storage, simply put it right back in the mine you extracted it from. It would be less radioactive than the raw ore.

 

You just showed that you are 100% unqualified to even pretend to know what you are talking about. I have nothing else to say to you. It’s not worth my time.



“The ratio of half-livesTU-238/TPu-240is roughly a factor of a million. So if a typical fuel cycle turns 0.1% of the initial U-238 into Pu-240, the fuel leaves the reactor roughly a thousand times more radioactive than it went in --- and will remain so for thousands of years.”

 

Link—-

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...more-dangerous-than-the-original-nuclear-fuel

 

Is that what I did? We can let others be the judge which one of us knows what we're talking about. After all the mistakes you made, I'm not sure you're going to come out on top in that contest.

You seriously don't know the difference between high level waste and low level waste, do you?

The forum you linked is talking about the first run of a gen 3 reactor. That contains plutonium. In fact, in my post that you quote mined I made it quite clear that it contains plutonium. Plutonium is high level waste. When you process high level waste, and turn it into low level waste, you have to remove the plutonium. There's no plutonium 240 in low level waste. The presence of P240 would make it high level waste...

I did not suggest putting high level waste in a mine would produce less radioactivity than the original ore.. I suggested that putting low level waste in a mine would produce less radioactivity than the original ore. Because it would...

 

Climate will be on the ballot in Australia.
Did the Aussie Opposition Leader Just Call for Cancelling the Paris Agreement?
Eric Worrall
Does “there’s no sense in signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving” translate to a commitment to dump Australia’s Paris obligations?

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has signalled he will scrap the nation’s legally binding 2030 climate target and risk Australia’s membership of the Paris Agreement on climate change, following his vow to deploy nuclear energy to reach net zero by 2050.

Dutton declared on Saturday that a Coalition government would not pursue Australia’s legally binding climate target to cut emissions by 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 – a significant escalation of Australia’s long-running climate policy war ahead of the next federal election due by May next year.

Dutton told The Australian on Saturday that the government’s renewable goal was unattainable and “there’s no sense in signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving”.

The opposition has said if it forms government it would build up to seven emissions-free nuclear power plants to replace the energy supply from Australia’s dirty coal plants, which have begun to shut down across the country. He would also pause the rollout of wind and solar farms.

…

“You can’t have the prime minister saying we aren’t going to have coal, we aren’t going to have gas and were not going to have nuclear power and we are going to keep the lights on – that’s just fantasy. We now have a debate about energy which I think we can win,” he told The Australian.

…

Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...a-out-of-paris-agreement-20240608-p5jk91.html

 

Is a nuclear renaissance in the offing?
Senate Passes Major Pro-Nuclear Bill, Sends To Biden’s Desk
Nick Pope
The Senate passed a major piece of pro-nuclear energy legislation on Tuesday, sending the bill to President Joe Biden’s desk. . . .

 

I just wrote my buddy, Joe, and told him not to pass it. Overpriced garbage energy, with extremely dangerous storage of wastes with half-lives of hundreds of thousands of years.

 

Passed 88-2 in the Senate.

 

It's a bill that "simplifies the approval process" for nuclear. That's not going to result in any less concrete or steel needed for the structures, and the outrageous cost overruns. That's not going to make the storage of wastes with half-lives of hundreds of thousands of years any more affordable. That's not going result in a change in the on-site storage of these same wastes in the heavily populated areas of the Eastern US or Southeastern US. That's not going to end the terrorist threat. That's not going to end the Natural Disaster threat.

Nuclear is ugly and will remain ugly.

 

Lawfare in the approval process has been a significant problem. This will help a lot.