[Pants-of-dog]

You are an unsincere debater. We are talking about nuclear power production, not about nuclear weapons. And yes, I don't mind them having nuclear power plants. This is a massive red herring. Very unsincere. Fuck off.

Not really. The best nuclear reactors are on submarines. Both require mining, milling, enrichment, et cetera.

The one nice thing about WMDs is that the US will not invade if you have them.

So, do you, instead, support the IAEA’s work of ensuring only peaceful use of nuclear energy?

WTF you talking about. You are not even using the right definition of efficiency and you just dismiss what I say?

I am saying that the examples of efficiency (or lack thereof) that you are describing are included in the life cycle assessments I mentioned.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Your proposed nonsense leads to efficiencies over 100%, that is not scientific, that is snake oil salesperson/witchcraft nonsense.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/en ... stment.asp

How many criminals are you aware off that are selling nuclear waste to terrorists?

There seem to be several groups doing it in Europe. The best seem to be Russian mafia who can get weapons grade stuff.

Whether or not people are affraid or have a heightened perception of danger is irrelevant to this argument, especially when most of the fear is spread by idiots that don't know shit about what they are talking about.

Why is the fear and terror irrelevant if that is the goal?

So in other words, lets just ignore the dangers of having billions and billions of tons of water ready to be released on a failure of a damn. Honestly, right now you sound like any anti-vaccine moron, just on a different topic.

Since you are being rude, you will not receive a reply to this tangent. If you want a reply to this argument, please rewrite it politely.

It is self-explanatory. As far as mining is concerned, you need far less (by many orders of magnitude) excavator operations which are in turn far less noxious to the environment.

You were discussing worker safety before. Now you seem to be discussing environmental impact.

[XogGyux]

Not really. The best nuclear reactors are on submarines. Both require mining, milling, enrichment, et cetera.

The one nice thing about WMDs is that the US will not invade if you have them.

So, do you, instead, support the IAEA’s work of ensuring only peaceful use of nuclear energy?

This thread is about climate. There is no role of WMDs in this discussion. This is a red herring.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/en ... stment.asp

This is not efficiency. Read the top line "Energy Return on Investment". This is a financial calculation.
This has nothing to do with the objections that you have brought up. This is an after-the-fact cover-up to try to cover up the fact that you didn't know shit of what you were taking about. This was not relevant to the discussion that we were having given the context.

Why is the fear and terror irrelevant if that is the goal?

Because this is an artificial creation caused by misinformation. That's the equivalent of objecting to vaccination because "people fear it". That is nonsense. Educate the people and get it over with. It is incredible that I need to explain this to you.

Since you are being rude, you will not receive a reply to this tangent. If you want a reply to this argument, please rewrite it politely.

I rather not.

You were discussing worker safety before. Now you seem to be discussing environmental impact.

No. I am discussing overall safety/impact/etc. Fossils you need to mine many orders of magnitude more mass, the mining process itself is many orders of magnitude more impactful in the environment, the actual transportation of the stuff is many orders of magnitude more dangerous. The actual burning of the stuff is many orders of magnitude more damaging to the environment and to human health.
With the exception of the handful of catastrophic accidents that have occured, nuclear powerplants emit ZERO radiation. It does not dump any radiation products into the air we breathe or the water we drink. The total amount of nuclear waste produced in the US in the last ~70 years combined is about 85000 tons, so somewhere between a titanic and a USS ronal reagan carrier worth of waste in over 70 years. The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere in 2021 ALONE is 5 BILLION (WITH B) tons in 1 single year, or about 50,000 ronald reagan carriers (weight, not volume) worth of CO2 every single year. And the difference is, nuclear waste is contained, we can monitor it, we can transport it, we can put it into a deep hole if we want to, or perhaps sometime in the future we can re-use it for something else. The shit we burn and throw into the atmosphere, we lose control of. And when we burn fossils... guess what it also releases radioactive shit into the air we breathe. Coal comes with uranium and other radioactive shit. Radiation is higher near coal plants than it is near nuclear plants!
You think solar is better? Do you have a comprehensive plan on how to deal with solar waste product? What do you do with a panel after its useful life? You know they contain heavy metals that are toxic right? Are you just planning on shipping them to a Cambodian landfill so that children drink the lead and cadmium water contaminated by our solar panel's waste?

Do yourself a favor, and similarly to the covid issue... go check what experts have to say in the matter.

[Pants-of-dog]

This thread is about climate. There is no role of WMDs in this discussion. This is a red herring.

So you are ignoring the proliferation drawback.

This is not efficiency. Read the top line "Energy Return on Investment". This is a financial calculation.
This has nothing to do with the objections that you have brought up. This is an after-the-fact cover-up to try to cover up the fact that you didn't know shit of what you were taking about. This was not relevant to the discussion that we were having given the context.

As long as we are clear that it does not violate thermodynamic laws for an energy project to put out more energy than was invested into said project.

And the more efficient a power system is, the higher this ratio will be.

Because this is an artificial creation caused by misinformation. That's the equivalent of objecting to vaccination because "people fear it". That is nonsense. Educate the people and get it over with. It is incredible that I need to explain this to you.

Considering how poorly education worked for Covid, I will assume that education would alos work poorly here.

I rather not.

If you are unable or unwilling to write your arguments out clearly and respectfully, then I think there should be no obligation for me to address them,.

No. I am discussing overall safety/impact/etc. Fossils you need to mine many orders of magnitude more mass, the mining process itself is many orders of magnitude more impactful in the environment, the actual transportation of the stuff is many orders of magnitude more dangerous. The actual burning of the stuff is many orders of magnitude more damaging to the environment and to human health.
With the exception of the handful of catastrophic accidents that have occured, nuclear powerplants emit ZERO radiation. It does not dump any radiation products into the air we breathe or the water we drink. The total amount of nuclear waste produced in the US in the last ~70 years combined is about 85000 tons, so somewhere between a titanic and a USS ronal reagan carrier worth of waste in over 70 years. The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere in 2021 ALONE is 5 BILLION (WITH B) tons in 1 single year, or about 50,000 ronald reagan carriers (weight, not volume) worth of CO2 every single year. And the difference is, nuclear waste is contained, we can monitor it, we can transport it, we can put it into a deep hole if we want to, or perhaps sometime in the future we can re-use it for something else. The shit we burn and throw into the atmosphere, we lose control of. And when we burn fossils... guess what it also releases radioactive shit into the air we breathe. Coal comes with uranium and other radioactive shit. Radiation is higher near coal plants than it is near nuclear plants!
You think solar is better? Do you have a comprehensive plan on how to deal with solar waste product? What do you do with a panel after its useful life? You know they contain heavy metals that are toxic right? Are you just planning on shipping them to a Cambodian landfill so that children drink the lead and cadmium water contaminated by our solar panel's waste?

This seems like a Gish gallop of claims.

Let us start with the very first one. Please show that uranium mining requires mining many orders of magnitude less mass.

After that, we will look at the other arguments in this Gish gallop.

[late]

Let us start with the very first one. Please show that uranium mining requires mining many orders of magnitude less mass.

After that, we will look at the other arguments in this Gish gallop.

Nuclear power is going to have to be part of the transition.

[Pants-of-dog]

Nuclear power is going to have to be part of the transition.

Do you and @XogGyux think I am opposed to nuclear energy?

If so, it may be that people are incorrectly perceiving environmentalists as opposed to nuclear.

It would be interesting to see a survey of environmentalists that asks about support for nuclear.

[XogGyux]

So you are ignoring the proliferation drawback.

There is no proliferation drawback. The limiting step in getting weapons is not in any way, shape, or form, advanced by having nuclear plants.

As long as we are clear that it does not violate thermodynamic laws for an energy project to put out more energy than was invested into said project.

You are going for a red herring. We were discussing efficiency and then you drop a different topic when it is clear you don't know what you are talking about. This is a trend with you, try to deflect by asking to provide evidence for this, evidence for that, define dog, define cat. I am not playing your game. Furthermore, it is interesting that even the source you linked says:

The average EROI across all generating technologies is about 40 for the United States, according to the World Nuclear Association pages cited above. The Association cites a study by Weissback et al. (2013), which states that “The results show that nuclear, hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than photovoltaics and wind power."

I doubt you even read the stuff that you post because I suspect you wouldn't have posted it had you read it.
You clearly did not watch the videos that I posted. I have been explaining this for days, I thought the audio-visual enhancements might have worked better, but clearly you are not interested in the subject other than to have one of your back and forth nonsensical discussions.

Considering how poorly education worked for Covid, I will assume that education would alos work poorly here.

The words of a close-minded individual.

If you are unable or unwilling to write your arguments out clearly and respectfully, then I think there should be no obligation for me to address them,.

What I am unable and unwilling to do is to fall in the endless vicious cycle of going back and forth with you as you routinely do. I posted the information, do your part and read/watch it.

Let us start with the very first one. Please show that uranium mining requires mining many orders of magnitude less mass.

This is precisely what I mean. You can do that work for yourself. I will not degrade this into a "show me this, show me that" when you are not even bothering in following through with the evidence that I have already provided to you. My time is valuable, I'm not wasting it on trolls.

Nuclear power is going to have to be part of the transition.

Absolutely it'd have to be. And the odd part is... we could have solved a HUGE percentage of global CO2 emissions.
Together, China, US, Russia, the EU countries, Canada, Turkey, Ukraine, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Australia, South Africa account for 80% of the CO2 emissions, and all of these countries already have at least 1 functioning nuclear plant. So the idea that getting a second or more would somehow increase the chances of WMD is absurd. The Most "dangerous" of those countries already have WMD ANYWAYS, such as russia, china, china and pakistan.
Look at it this way. It is not possible to bring solar or wind, both of which are around 2-3% global currently, all the way to replace fossils within the next half a century. It is simply not mathematically possible. However... we could completely replace electricity production with nuclear in 2 decades time. Not that it would be easy, it will be very hard. But there is no actual impediment for this to happen other than political/legislature/bureaucratic.
If we had not panicked in the 1980s with Chernobyl, there is a version of this world in which we wouldn't be even having a CO2 discussion. It is absurd, the amount of chaos and fear created by this accident worldwide far outweighs the reality of the actual disaster. And this is, taking the absolutely worse case scenario for nuclear in which basically you have to ignore common sense and purposedly design a sub-part plant for it to fail as catastrophically as it did, and then ignore any sort of possible safety protocol that you might have in place. Current reactors are many orders of magnitude safer. In fact, some experts claim that it is impossible for them to have a meltdown at all.

[XogGyux]

Do you and @XogGyux think I am opposed to nuclear energy?

If so, it may be that people are incorrectly perceiving environmentalists as opposed to nuclear.

It would be interesting to see a survey of environmentalists that asks about support for nuclear.

Bullshit. This is disengenuos as hell. This is equivalent to Blunto asking "Do you think I am opposed to vaccines". Hell yeah, when you spent the last week constantly spreading out debunked myths about the "drawbacks" nuclear you are clearly in opposition. Not unlike spending the last 2 years constantly posting bullshit about myocarditis from vaccines.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no proliferation drawback. The limiting step in getting weapons is not in any way, shape, or form, advanced by having nuclear plants.

Even if this is true, it is also true that many of the other steps for getting nuclear weapons are only achievable if there is also a nuclear energy program.

You are going for a red herring. We were discussing efficiency and then you drop a different topic when it is clear you don't know what you are talking about. This is a trend with you, try to deflect by asking to provide evidence for this, evidence for that, define dog, define cat. I am not playing your game. Furthermore, it is interesting that even the source you linked says:

I doubt you even read the stuff that you post because I suspect you wouldn't have posted it had you read it.
You clearly did not watch the videos that I posted. I have been explaining this for days, I thought the audio-visual enhancements might have worked better, but clearly you are not interested in the subject other than to have one of your back and forth nonsensical discussions.

All of this is about me, and is not about the argument.

So you now accept that an electric plant project will yield more energy than what is put into it.

You also accept that people use this as a way of comparing electricity generation systems.

Now, do you understand that, all other things being equal, a more efficient system (as you define it) will yield more electricity than an inefficient one (again, using your definition of efficiency)?

The words of a close-minded individual.

No. I am just pointing out that many US citizens are ruled by fear and misinformation, and that previous attempts to get them to stop this have not worked very well.

What I am unable and unwilling to do is to fall in the endless vicious cycle of going back and forth with you as you routinely do. I posted the information, do your part and read/watch it.

This is precisely what I mean. You can do that work for yourself. I will not degrade this into a "show me this, show me that" when you are not even bothering in following through with the evidence that I have already provided to you. My time is valuable, I'm not wasting it on trolls.

Since you are unwilling to support your arguments for you, I am not going to do that work for you.

Absolutely it'd have to be. And the odd part is... we could have solved a HUGE percentage of global CO2 emissions.
Together, China, US, Russia, the EU countries, Canada, Turkey, Ukraine, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Australia, South Africa account for 80% of the CO2 emissions, and all of these countries already have at least 1 functioning plan. So the idea that getting a second or more would somehow increase the chances of WMD is absurd. The Most "dangerous" of those countries already have WMD ANYWAYS, such as russia, china, china and pakistan.
Look at it this way. It is not possible to bring solar or wind, both of which are around 2-3% global currently, all the way to replace fossils within the next half a century. It is simply not mathematically possible. However... we could completely replace electricity production with nuclear in 2 decades time. Not that it would be easy, it will be very hard. But there is no actual impediment for this to happen other than political/legislature/bureaucratic.
If we had not panicked in the 1980s with Chernobyl, there is a version of this world in which we wouldn't be even having a CO2 discussion. It is absurd, the amount of chaos and fear created by this accident worldwide far outweighs the reality of the actual disaster. And this is, taking the absolutely worse case scenario for nuclear in which basically you have to ignore common sense and purposedly design a sub-part plant for it to fail as catastrophically as it did, and then ignore any sort of possible safety protocol that you might have in place. Current reactors are many orders of magnitude safer. In fact, some experts claim that it is impossible for them to have a meltdown at all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Do you think that nuclear is an absolutely necessary step for avoiding some of the worst impacts of climate change?

If so, would you agree that nuclear plants need a large amount of government investment?

[Pants-of-dog]

Bullshit. This is disengenuos as hell. This is equivalent to Blunto asking "Do you think I am opposed to vaccines". Hell yeah, when you spent the last week constantly spreading out debunked myths about the "drawbacks" nuclear you are clearly in opposition. Not unlike spending the last 2 years constantly posting bullshit about myocarditis from vaccines.

Then you need to read my posts more carefully and stop jumping to conclusions.

Go back and try to find a single post where I argue that we should not use nuclear. If you cannot, then I will accept your apology.

[XogGyux]

Even if this is true, it is also true that many of the other steps for getting nuclear weapons are only achievable if there is also a nuclear energy program.

This is not true. The difficulty of creating nuclear weapons is obtaining enough enriched products. This is the reason for which you need to have powerful centrifuges because you need to do isotopic separation and the chemical products are chemically identically but the only major difference is atomic weight and thus you need extremely powerful centrifuges. If you can do that to purify plutonium, you can just as easily do it for uranium. You don't need to have a plant to create waste products to make weapons. This is nonsense. And if you had read or watched any of the sources I gave you, you would have known this.

Now, do you understand that, all other things being equal, a more efficient system (as you define it) will yield more electricity than an inefficient one (again, using your definition of efficiency)?

It is not "my" definition of efficiency. This is what efficiency is in general. When you buy a computer power supply, it gives you an efficiency rating for instance. A power supply that has an 80% efficiency, means that 80W can be delivered to the computer's component for each 100W drawn from the wall. The remainder 20% is lost to heat.
Now you are just trying to dispel the colossal mistake by your part.
Furthermore, you are way out of line with these sort of comparisons. If you recall, I used efficiency in the context of using a panel in a poor geographic location such as germany. In this case, I am using the word in its colloquial meaning. In other words, I was using inefficiency to mean wasteful. Putting solar panels in a country that has limited solar radiation is wasteful and it has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of solar itself. You can also put a nuclear plant in the antarctic and it would be wasteful because you would have to waste a lot of energy in the transmission of all that electricity to a place that it would be useful. So again, in the context, inefficiency relates to relative waste (AKA putting something that makes no sense for the geography served), rather than an intrinsic property of the technology. Comparing efficiency across different technologies at this stage makes little sense. For instance, a solar panel with 20% efficiency vs a diesel generator with 40% efficient... it might sound like the diesel generator is a better deal because it is more efficient, but guess what... the fuel in solar is essentially free so you might not care too much that the device is less efficient, if the fuel is plentiful and cheap. The things that make one technology more convenient than another technology has nothing to do with their intrinsic energy efficiency and more to do with the specific characteristics of the techonolgy. We are not trying to get away from fossil fuels because it only provides about 30%-40% of useful energy compared to the total amount of chemical energy stored and we are not trying to go into wind energy because it converts 30% of the kinetic energy of the wind into usable electric energy. In fact, we want to get rid of fossil because we are poisoning ourselves while at the same time gambling on the health of the planet.
So let's summarize. First you misunderstood my colloquial usage of the word for a more technical term that I was not intended to use. But as if that was not enough, then you confabulated a definition of efficiency that makes no sense, bringing into the picture "Energy Return on Investment" which is not efficiency. But as if all of that was not enough, you didn't seem to realize that the articule you linked puts nuclear favorably, as the highest EROI technology and an order of magnitude higher than wind/solar.
So anyway you cut this discussion, it seems you are just grasping for straws to make the argument that nuclear bad and everytime you fail, because you are not well educated in the topic.

Since you are unwilling to support your arguments for you, I am not going to do that work for you.

I am not unwilling to support my arguments. I have in fact provided plenty of explanation and data regarding every single one of the arguments I have put forth. You are the one ignoring all of that and asking for more. I don't dance tango with trolls.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

This is precisely what you are doing.

Do you think that nuclear is an absolutely necessary step for avoiding some of the worst impacts of climate change?

I am convinced that it is the only way to do so with the available technology. The only other option that is in the pipeline right now that could be just as significant, is fusion energy which is just another fancy nuclear energy but that technology, if at all possible will be late by half a century.

There is no way that we can put our electrical grid at more than 60% on wind, solar and hydro. No way. There is no future with the available technology that we can put 100% in renewables. Even if we could create enough panels and windmills to produce the energy, we would never have enough to create the batteries needed to be able to buffer the energy for usage during downtime. Right now... that buffer is performed by fossil fuels. If you want to phase out fossils, you have to invent a system to buffer energy. You will destroy the planet before you mine enough minerals to make enough solar panels, batteries and windmills to create a "sustainable" world. Fuck that.

[XogGyux]

Then you need to read my posts more carefully and stop jumping to conclusions.

Go back and try to find a single post where I argue that we should not use nuclear. If you cannot, then I will accept your apology.

No, that is not what you do. What you do is similar to the anti-vaxers that don't quite tell you to your face what they think but instead start posting articles of myocarditis, allergic reactions, or some other weird conspiracy theory.
When you readily put forth as objections what are widely debunked myths of nuclear you are advertising both your stance and your ignorance of the matter. I don't need blunto to tell me he doesn't like vaccines in so many words, I can tell from his idiotic posts that much. I don't need you to explicitly tell me that you oppose nuclear, I can tell from your idiotic posts that much.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is not true. The difficulty of creating nuclear weapons is obtaining enough enriched products. This is the reason for which you need to have powerful centrifuges because you need to do isotopic separation and the chemical products are chemically identically but the only major difference is atomic weight and thus you need extremely powerful centrifuges. If you can do that to purify plutonium, you can just as easily do it for uranium.

Sure, but nuclear energy programs require a supply chain of radioactive fuel, the tools material, snd training to handle it, waste disposal systems and training, et cetera.

You don't need to have a plant to create waste products to make weapons. This is nonsense. And if you had read or watched any of the sources I gave you, you would have known this.

No one claimed this.

Perhaps you are confusing the dirty bomb drawback with the proliferation drawback.

It is not "my" definition of efficiency. This is what efficiency is in general. When you buy a computer power supply, it gives you an efficiency rating for instance. A power supply that has an 80% efficiency, means that 80W can be delivered to the computer's component for each 100W drawn from the wall. The remainder 20% is lost to heat.
Now you are just trying to dispel the colossal mistake by your part.

These efficiency calculations that you discuss sre included in the energy return over investment (EROI) calculations I mentioned.

EROIs then use a whole bunch of other calculations to figure out the overall efficiency of a project.

Environmentalists then use these over the entire life cycle of the project, so that construction and decommission coats are also included. These are called life cycle assessments or LCAs.

Furthermore, you are way out of line with these sort of comparisons. If you recall, I used efficiency in the context of using a panel in a poor geographic location such as germany. In this case, I am using the word in its colloquial meaning. In other words, I was using inefficiency to mean wasteful. Putting solar panels in a country that has limited solar radiation is wasteful and it has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of solar itself.

You mean the solar panels in the country that could generate more power than the whole country needed, and always had all of their electricity used?

That seems efficient to me.

You can also put a nuclear plant in the antarctic and it would be wasteful because you would have to waste a lot of energy in the transmission of all that electricity to a place that it would be useful. So again, in the context, inefficiency relates to relative waste (AKA putting something that makes no sense for the geography served), rather than an intrinsic property of the technology. Comparing efficiency across different technologies at this stage makes little sense. For instance, a solar panel with 20% efficiency vs a diesel generator with 40% efficient... it might sound like the diesel generator is a better deal because it is more efficient, but guess what... the fuel in solar is essentially free so you might not care too much that the device is less efficient, if the fuel is plentiful and cheap. The things that make one technology more convenient than another technology has nothing to do with their intrinsic energy efficiency and more to do with the specific characteristics of the techonolgy. We are not trying to get away from fossil fuels because it only provides about 30%-40% of useful energy compared to the total amount of chemical energy stored and we are not trying to go into wind energy because it converts 30% of the kinetic energy of the wind into usable electric energy. In fact, we want to get rid of fossil because we are poisoning ourselves while at the same time gambling on the health of the planet.

Again, people use EROIs and LCAs all the time to compare diesel to solar or whatever you want. You can even quantify costs in GHGs instead of money if you want to compare kW-hours per tonne of CO2.

You even quoted one that I had linked to.

So let's summarize. First you misunderstood my colloquial usage of the word for a more technical term that I was not intended to use. But as if that was not enough, then you confabulated a definition of efficiency that makes no sense, bringing into the picture "Energy Return on Investment" which is not efficiency. But as if all of that was not enough, you didn't seem to realize that the articule you linked puts nuclear favorably, as the highest EROI technology and an order of magnitude higher than wind/solar.
So anyway you cut this discussion, it seems you are just grasping for straws to make the argument that nuclear bad and everytime you fail, because you are not well educated in the topic.

If I am so poorly educated, then please show how nuclear is more efficient without using EROIs or LCAs. Thanks.

I am not unwilling to support my arguments. I have in fact provided plenty of explanation and data regarding every single one of the arguments I have put forth. You are the one ignoring all of that and asking for more. I don't dance tango with trolls.

From now on, I am going to ignore these bits that are your commentary on how I debate and have no bearing on nuclear energy. You may find the portions of your post to which I reply are considerably shorter than you may like. I hope you understand.

This is precisely what you are doing.

No, since I have not even mentioned my argument in a while,

But do not worry, I am going to tie it in soon.

I am convinced that it is the only way to do so with the available technology. The only other option that is in the pipeline right now that could be just as significant, is fusion energy which is just another fancy nuclear energy but that technology, if at all possible will be late by half a century.

There is no way that we can put our electrical grid at more than 60% on wind, solar and hydro. No way. There is no future with the available technology that we can put 100% in renewables. Even if we could create enough panels and windmills to produce the energy, we would never have enough to create the batteries needed to be able to buffer the energy for usage during downtime. Right now... that buffer is performed by fossil fuels. If you want to phase out fossils, you have to invent a system to buffer energy. You will destroy the planet before you mine enough minerals to make enough solar panels, batteries and windmills to create a "sustainable" world. Fuck that.

Okay.

Let us do some math.

92 nuclear power plants make 19% of US electricity.. To get to 100%, you folks need about 475. Does this seem realistic?

Almost forgot:
1. You argue that nuclear is necessary.
2. You pointed out that nuclear is an action that us out of range for individuals and must be done by government.

From these two facts, we can deduce politicians are not doing their job when it comes to providing the solution to climate change.

Please note that this is my argument and you seem to agree.

[XogGyux]

Sure, but nuclear energy programs require a supply chain of radioactive fuel, the tools material, snd training to handle it, waste disposal systems and training, et cetera.

And that is a problem because?
Xray operators require training as well, and nurses and doctors that handle Technetium-99m scans also need to have training. I don't see how more training is a problem. The supply chain already exists. As I have mentioned before, over 80% of the CO2 emissions are produced by countries that already have nuclear plants. And virtually every country with a half-decent hospital have a nuclear medicine department where radioactive materials are handled every day. That is, not to mention, universities, research laboratories, etc, etc, etc. You do know you can buy foking uranium on the internet right?

No one claimed this.

Perhaps you are confusing the dirty bomb drawback with the proliferation drawback.

I highly doubt it. You are playing switch and bait.

These efficiency calculations that you discuss sre included in the energy return over investment (EROI) calculations I mentioned.

Stop it. It is very pathetic watching you bend out of shape to try to make explanations for your blunders. I am not interested.

You mean the solar panels in the country that could generate more power than the whole country needed, and always had all of their electricity used?

That seems efficient to me.

WTF you talking about?

If I am so poorly educated, then please show how nuclear is more efficient without using EROIs or LCAs. Thanks.

I am not playing your games. It is foolish.

Okay.

Let us do some math.

92 nuclear power plants make 19% of US electricity.. To get to 100%, you folks need about 475. Does this seem realistic?

Almost forgot:
1. You argue that nuclear is necessary.
2. You pointed out that nuclear is an action that us out of range for individuals and must be done by government.

From these two facts, we can deduce politicians are not doing their job when it comes to providing the solution to climate change.

Please note that this is my argument and you seem to agree.

1: Necessary does not mean exclusive. Nuclear does not need to be the exclusive source of power. Therefore, any individual that begin to work its way up with his personal solar array, independence from gas engine cars, etc. is probably taking a step in the right direction. Many thousands of individuals might make a tiny percentage change. Etc. My views of nuclear are in no way, shape, or form incompatible with a future that also integrates solar, wind, hydro, geothermal.

2: And the government has no chance of evolving if individuals like yourself remain poorly educated and continue to hold false beliefs. Again, unless you subscribe to the "they stole the election" narrative, your vote as an individual count in a democratic country. While we might have some trouble w/ china, more than half of the CO2 production is done on western, highly democratic countries, so yes.... even individuals have power on nuclear. The blunder of Germany is a direct result of its fearful population, of ignorant individuals. If you keep electing fools that think that either coal or panels is the way to go, we are going to get cooked in our own planet.
So, ironically, my individual contribution is to try to educate another individual like yourself of the way to go. QED

[Pants-of-dog]

And that is a problem because?
Xray operators require training as well, and nurses and doctors that handle Technetium-99m scans also need to have training. I don't see how more training is a problem. The supply chain already exists. As I have mentioned before, over 80% of the CO2 emissions are produced by countries that already have nuclear plants. And virtually every country with a half-decent hospital have a nuclear medicine department where radioactive materials are handled every day. That is, not to mention, universities, research laboratories, etc, etc, etc. You do know you can buy foking uranium on the internet right?

Yes, exactly.

I also do not see nuclear proliferation as a problem. The cat is already out of the proverbial bag, as you point out. And if it also gets countries halfway to WMD production, that means they will not be invaded or “liberated” by another country.

I highly doubt it. You are playing switch and bait.

Stop it. It is very pathetic watching you bend out of shape to try to make explanations for your blunders. I am not interested.

WTF you talking about?

I am not playing your games. It is foolish.

None of this is an argument or rebuttal.

1: Necessary does not mean exclusive. Nuclear does not need to be the exclusive source of power. Therefore, any individual that begin to work its way up with his personal solar array, independence from gas engine cars, etc. is probably taking a step in the right direction. Many thousands of individuals might make a tiny percentage change. Etc. My views of nuclear are in no way, shape, or form incompatible with a future that also integrates solar, wind, hydro, geothermal.

So, you are advocating for a mixed system. Where hydro, solar, geothermal, and nuclear are all used. Yes, this makes more sense than arguing that we should use nuclear instead of solar.

2: …….. The blunder of Germany is a direct result of its fearful population, of ignorant individuals. If you keep electing fools that think that either coal or panels is the way to go, we are going to get cooked in our own planet.

I think your knowledge of Germany’s power grid is based solely on right wing memes.

[XogGyux]

Yes, exactly.

I also do not see nuclear proliferation as a problem. The cat is already out of the proverbial bag, as you point out. And if it also gets countries halfway to WMD production, that means they will not be invaded or “liberated” by another country.

I am glad you are in agreement.

So, you are advocating for a mixed system. Where hydro, solar, geothermal, and nuclear are all used. Yes, this makes more sense than arguing that we should use nuclear instead of solar.

As I have said repeatedly. You have been creating a strawman all this time. Nobody is arguing that every Caribbean island and every tiny country in the world should get their own nuclear plant and that all buses and trains and cars should get their own small nuclear reactors. Nobody is arguing that 100% of the energy must be nuclear and if you see my initial points in which I argue that individuals can and should do their part I clearly allude to this. You have, however, created this strawman.
The reality is that the world is in a precarious situation. There is no answer that can wean us off 100% from fossils. We simply don't have a technology capable of substituting fossils in the transportation industry (definitely for planes, but also for cars.) The safety concerns with nuclear are mostly nonsense, nuclear is already one of the safest technologies in the planet, and further study, research and development would only make it far safer. Breeder reactos would generate several orders of magnitude less waste and it could even help reducing the waste we already produced.
Imagine this, we already release far more uranium into the air we breathe and the water we drink by burning fuel (and other geological processes) but some people are freaking out about relatively tiny amounts that we have inside a steel and concrete mini-bunker that can stand the impact of a speeding train without leaking? A bombproof canister that we could easily deposit into an impermeable solid stone mountain, many meters underground nowhere near any useful source of water? And we are worrying about the fact that a few of those particles are going to be radioactive for 20k years.... when we could very well cease to exist in a couple centuries if we don't act now?
I am sorry, but that is ludicrous. This is old technology that it is safe, plentiful, and available. It is not super complicated, and it works. The major obstacle is not technology, is not safety, it is rather the perception of the public and bureaucracy.

I think your knowledge of Germany’s power grid is based solely on right wing memes.

Do you honestly think I consume right-wing media or right-wing memes?
You are hilarious. No. I like science in general and I spend hours every week watching documentaries, classes, etc about science and technology. I first became aware of Germany's issue on a TED talk about 5-10 years ago that compared france with Germany, I believe I linked it to you. Since then I have read countless articles that basically echos this problem... and guess what, this became an even worse problem for germany when the war of Russia-Ukraine started. It goes full circle.
You know what bothers me even more than a right-wing spreading nonsense about covid vaccines or about global warming or about geopolitics, etc? A left-wing doing the same crap.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am glad you are in agreement.

If you think that nuclear proliferation is real, but a good thing since it reduces the risk of being invaded by the USA amd like countries, then yes, we agree.

As I have said repeatedly. You have been creating a strawman all this time. Nobody is arguing that every Caribbean island and every tiny country in the world should get their own nuclear plant and that all buses and trains and cars should get their own small nuclear reactors. Nobody is arguing that 100% of the energy must be nuclear and if you see my initial points in which I argue that individuals can and should do their part I clearly allude to this. You have, however, created this strawman.

The calculation for the number of nuclear plants us based solely on current electricity consumption.

If we wanted to electrify transportation and everything else, you would need at least a thousand nuclear reactors.

So yes, solar and wund and hydro will need to be part of the solution.

The reality is that the world is in a precarious situation. There is no answer that can wean us off 100% from fossils. We simply don't have a technology capable of substituting fossils in the transportation industry (definitely for planes, but also for cars.)

From what I understand, there is s company already selling "sustainable" aviation fuel. It seems to be a plant based fuel.

This would be a useful thing to subsidize.

The safety concerns with nuclear are mostly nonsense, nuclear is already one of the safest technologies in the planet, and further study, research and development would only make it far safer. Breeder reactos would generate several orders of magnitude less waste and it could even help reducing the waste we already produced.

While future technologies are promising, we are in a precarious situation right niw and it would be more effective to use existing tech that works right now.

Imagine this, we already release far more uranium into the air we breathe and the water we drink by burning fuel (and other geological processes) but some people are freaking out about relatively tiny amounts that we have inside a steel and concrete mini-bunker that can stand the impact of a speeding train without leaking? A bombproof canister that we could easily deposit into an impermeable solid stone mountain, many meters underground nowhere near any useful source of water? And we are worrying about the fact that a few of those particles are going to be radioactive for 20k years.... when we could very well cease to exist in a couple centuries if we don't act now?
I am sorry, but that is ludicrous. This is old technology that it is safe, plentiful, and available. It is not super complicated, and it works. The major obstacle is not technology, is not safety, it is rather the perception of the public and bureaucracy.

The feelings of people opposed to nuclear do not seem that influential.

The USS spends billions or trillions on nuclear, and no one seems to care enough to complain.

The last widespread movement against nuclear was the disarmament movement which ended thirty years ago.

Do you honestly think I consume right-wing media or right-wing memes?
You are hilarious. No. I like science in general and I spend hours every week watching documentaries, classes, etc about science and technology. I first became aware of Germany's issue on a TED talk about 5-10 years ago that compared france with Germany, I believe I linked it to you. Since then I have read countless articles that basically echos this problem... and guess what, this became an even worse problem for germany when the war of Russia-Ukraine started. It goes full circle.
You know what bothers me even more than a right-wing spreading nonsense about covid vaccines or about global warming or about geopolitics, etc? A left-wing doing the same crap.

Then please clarify exactly what the problem is with Germany. Then we can verify the extent of this problem. Thanks.

[XogGyux]

If you think that nuclear proliferation is real, but a good thing since it reduces the risk of being invaded by the USA amd like countries, then yes, we agree.

Right when it appears you are about to start to make sense, you do a 180 turn and run away. Geez you are more timid than a penis in a freezing cold pool.

So many things wrong with your statement.
1.- It suggests that having nuclear plants somehow gets you closer to nuclear weapons. We have touched on this many times before. This is nonsense. You cannot put 4 nuclear plant operators and engineer in a room, give them some stolen nuclear waste and duct tape and ask them to McGyver together a nuclear weapon. A fucking nuke and a nuclear plant have as much in common as a 747 jet engine and a accord straight 4 engine. Yes, both are engines, both move vehicles, both use some sort of liquid hydrocarbon fuel but that is about where the similarities end. A jet engine engineer that has no experience working on cars is not going to be able to assamble and disassemble a car engine anymore than a car engine engineer can do the same for a jet engine.
When my dog is sick, I don't try to give it prescriptions or diagnose it... I take it to the veterinarian. When veterinarians are sick, they don't go to their other veterinarian friends for help or prescriptions, they go to the human doctor. The only people stupid enough to take horse ivermectin and fish chloroquine are trump supporters. Right now... your logic, is as poor as a trump supporter's logic. Think about that.

2. If having nuclear plants was in some way a deterrent for having a country invade your borders... we wouldn't have seen Russia invade Ukraine. News flash, Ukraine have nuclear plants and it did not prevent Russia from invading it. Funny enough, look how safe the nuclear plants are, that even in the middle of a war, with constant power interruption, constant bombardment, etc... in over a year... there have not been any major nuclear disasters. And the worse part of it... those are old as fuck plants, constructed by soviet standards and maintained by a corrupt Ukrainian government. If that alone is not a testament for general safety of nuclear energy... I don't know what is.

3. Your snarky anti-USA comment is noted and I ask you... what would you have instead? You want a world lead by China? Or perhaps once Lead by Russia? You sound like a spoiled teenager complaining of your parents "are the worse parents"... tell me, which parents would you rather have? The world is what the world is because of human nature. Less than 10k of recorded human history, and war and empires have been a constant feature of all ages and all parts of the world. Arguably, despite all the crazy shit that has been going on in the world, the present is on average the least violent and bellicose.
So who? China? You don't think china is an imperialistic power? You think they are making fake islands in the pacific and puting air bases in those islands because they are pacifist people? Or perhaps you think Russia is the good parent? You don't care they invaded Ukraine? That they are disputing territory with Japan? Invaded Georgia, Chechnya? Intervened in just as many if not more conflicts than the US?
How about you close your notbook of unicorns and rainbows and start opening your eyes to the real world? You know what, the US is ok... could be better, I won't stop offering constructive criticism, there is room for improvement. But compared to all other shitty countries out there... the US is doing a dam fine job.

The calculation for the number of nuclear plants us based solely on current electricity consumption.

The same applies for windmills and for solar panels you fool . If energy consumption doubles in the next century, the current 2% of solar panels will only represent 1% of future electricity consumption. This only makes your argument weaker, the math does not stretch to support current needs, much less any further expansion of needs.

If we wanted to electrify transportation and everything else, you would need at least a thousand nuclear reactors.

Sure... and billions of solar panels. Again, the math is even more brutal on your point than on mine. Hence the importance to stop spreading nonsense information about nuclear. It is irresponsible, counterproductive, and a borderline crime against humanity.

So yes, solar and wund and hydro will need to be part of the solution.

And perhaps the only person that opposed that is the strawman that you have made.

From what I understand, there is s company already selling "sustainable" aviation fuel. It seems to be a plant based fuel.

Bullshit. This is the nonsense that a starter corporation would tell a bunch of California wanna-bee hippies to take their money and fool them into doing something stupid.
Look, having biofuels that are net zero CO2, might be possible... but sustainable? not under any current model without cheap electricity. Take for instance growing corn for ethanol, 45% of our corn goes to that... Is it really sustainable? Isen't the world freaking out that africa is going to have a famine due to the wheat loses from Ukraine and the fertilizer shortage from both russia and ukraine? Meanwhile we are growing 90 million acres worth of corn so that we can burn half of it in our F-150's to make us feel a bit greener. Sustainable? How is that sustainable at all?
To put this on a grand scale, we need energy that it is so cheap, that we can grow shit on vertical farms using extremely cheap energy... maybe not even fission energy, maybe we will need to crack cheap and extremily abundant fussion energy to be able to properly create sustainable biofuels without impacting other crops that can be used for human and animal feeding. Using our fertile and productive lands/farms to grow something that is destined to be burned is a big middle finger to starving people.
Generating biofuels is a process that will consume energy because we are trying to make energy-rich molecules, to do so... you require energy. So you need a damn powerful source of energy to have the process be worthwhile. Now... the sun is cheap... but the land is finite and we have better uses for that land. It turns out, that the places were there is plentiful of sun.... either we have forests that we should preserve (amazon? jungles in asia? And.. we have better use for that land. I rather have the amazon forest over 2.5 million square miles of corn farm to power our jet planes. Do you agree that it is better to have the amazon? In fact, this also applies to solar and wind farms... they are called farms for a reason, they actually do occupy a lot of space and the sort of place that is productive, tends to be good for raising crops, for having forrest, etc. Not a lot of people are stupid enough to live close to deserts that we can dedicate to solar farms without feeling too bad (nevada I am looking at you). But even derserts... have tight ecosystems that can be destroyed by bringing solar farms. Again, not a huge deal when you are planning on having a small percentage of your grid being solar, but if you want to power a country without fossil fuels and you don't want nuclear... you are going to fuck up a lot of forrest, a lot of farmland and a lot of ecosystems, because you need a heck of a lot of land to fill with solar panels in order to replace fossils. Honestly, the math does not work.

This would be a useful thing to subsidize.

We already do, corn subsidies. And I think it is stupid.

While future technologies are promising, we are in a precarious situation right niw and it would be more effective to use existing tech that works right now.

Yeah... hello? It is called nuclear, and it has been around for about 3/4th of a century.

The feelings of people opposed to nuclear do not seem that influential.

Influential enough to have a leftie like yourself bend out of shape to try to explain how the technology that has the only real chance of getting us out of this problem is bad.
Seriously... it is bad enough to have to fight a stupid climate denier... Instead, we both agree we have a problem but our ways to tackle the issue couldn't be farther apart... And then you pretend to be surprised that politicians don't do shit on the matter. This is why they don't do shit... because people don't agree... even when they agree Not because they are bought... although yes, there might also be a bit of that as well, but I genuinely don't think thats the main issue, I think the main issue is that the general population, you, other PoFors, Me, the American people... simply don't agree... And when people don't agree, nothing gets done. We are the proverbial deer in the headlights.

The USS spends billions or trillions on nuclear, and no one seems to care enough to complain.

Actually, that is not true.

Then please clarify exactly what the problem is with Germany. Then we can verify the extent of this problem. Thanks.

No. I told you. I am not playing this game with you.

[Pants-of-dog]

@XogGyux

If you are hot even going to clarify what your arguments are, then this is pointless.

Buenas.

[XogGyux]

@Pants-of-dog
My arguments couldn't be clearer. There is nothing particularly complex about them and to top it off, they came with audio-visual support for just about every point I made. I feel pretty comfortable that I explained myself well and that my point is solid and that my stance is unshaken.
Buenas as well.

[Pants-of-dog]

@XogGyux

What exactly did Germany do wrong? Please be clear and concise. Thank you.