Can Any Country Achieve Net Zero Without Nuclear?

PeterDonis said:

Uranium and plutonium oxides coming from reprocessing, which is what your chart shows, are not stored for long term, they are used as fuel. That's actually the primary purpose of reprocessing from a nuclear fuel cycle standpoint--"spent" fuel from a reactor actually has a good deal of still usable fissile isotopes in it.

The only things that have to be stored long-term are the remaining wastes after the U and Pu oxides are removed to be re-used as fuel. The remaining wastes all have short half-lives and only remain high-level waste requiring special storage for times, as I said, on the order of 100 years.

Well, France prefers to send it back rather than making new fuel. Why?

fresh_42 said:

France prefers to send it back rather than making new fuel. Why?

Probably because they already have sufficient fuel for their own needs.

fresh_42 said:

I don't think it is as short.

Given the very nature of the 'half-life' and the various reference values, scales and units, various storage length requirements can be chosen, for very different purposes.

For practical purposes in nuclear industry, in case of properly processed fuel and other radioactive materials the 'on the order of 100 years' is achievable.
Not necessarily convenient, cheap or the best choice, but achievable.

fresh_42 said:

I tried to tell you the differences between the US and Germany

Subjective side, fueling and fueled by politics.
Engineering, physics and math is kind of expected to be the same, I believe.

fresh_42 said:

Anyway, this is all politics. I tried to tell you the differences between the US and Germany, but you preferred not to believe me. Instead, you find it acceptable to claim that Angela Merkel made a, quote: "rather poor" decision based on your ignorance of the German history and specific situation.

If such a comment had been made about any decision Trump has made, it would had been immediately deleted. But to call out Merkel based on ignorance is alright?

I do not neccesarily agree with poster but wasn't there something about a no-politics rule

EDIT_ this was supposed to stay a thought, but it seems I unconciosly wrote it in.

glappkaeft said:

Not confusing at all or at least not more confusing than any other countries history of weights and measures. ;)

A mile in Sweden (well from 1665, also called a uniform mile (enhetsmil) based on the older Uppsala mile, since before that the different regions of Sweden used their own regional miles, from about 5-15 km long).

After that 1 Swedish mile = 3 600 rods = 6 000 fathoms = 18 000 eln = 36 000 feet (in Sweden at 0.2969 m slightly shorter than the English foot) = 10 688,4 meter. Other Nordic countries used the same definition but slightly different lengths of feet. In Sweden this mile was kept after introducing SI but rounded to 10 km (a.k.a. new mile - nymil).

SI was invented for a reason...

Heh, Now I don't even remember what confused me in the first place. :)

PeterDonis said:

Probably because they already have sufficient fuel for their own needs.

Rive said:

Not necessarily convenient, cheap or the best choice, but achievable.

I still have my doubts. Following your argumentation would imply that already processed and paid ##\mathrm{UO_3}## and ##\mathrm{PuO_2}## is more expensive than digging up uranium ore in Australia, shipping it to France, and processing it to fuel. That makes no sense to me, sorry, especially as we would probably pay France money to keep our waste. I did not research the details but I believe in functioning markets though.

And if it is cheaper to dump that to re-use then the argument is void anyway.

sbrothy said:

I do not neccesarily agree with poster but wasn't there something about a no-politics rule

That was my point. Criticism ("rather poor [decision]") of Merkel without knowledge of the specific German circumstances seems to be ok.

fresh_42 said:

...already processed and paid and is more expensive than digging up uranium ore in Australia, shipping it to France, and processing it to fuel...

I know: it's worse than PN junctions or GR, but that's exactly the case right now.

Ps.: take into consideration that post-soviet enriched U also has a really deep impact on the market, and their approach to environmental issues (=> price) is ... erm...

fresh_42 said:

Following your argumentation would imply that already processed and paid ##\mathrm{UO_3}## and ##\mathrm{PuO_2}## is more expensive than digging up uranium ore in Australia, shipping it to France, and processing it to fuel.

No, it doesn't. France reprocesses fuel from its own reactors. The fact that it sends back fuel reprocessed from other countries' reactors to those other countries does not mean its only alternative source of fuel is mining.

fresh_42 said:

And if it is cheaper to dump that to re-use then the argument is void anyway.

Not at all. If the fuel doesn't get used right now, that doesn't mean it is "dumped". It just means it gets stored for a while until it is used. That's probably a time frame on the order of years, possibly decades, so even shorter than the other time frames we have discussed in this thread.

There is definitely opposition to nuclear power on moral grounds. There are those who feel it is more moral to lay waste to hundreds of square miles of land, kill hundrreds of thousands of people and displace millions that to use nuclear power. it is more mortal to prop of thugs in more than a few extremely repressive regimes than to use nuclear power. And so on. We won't decide this issue on PF, but we should not deny that it exists nor that it plays an important role in policy and decision making.

How long does nuclear waste last? That's an ill-defined question. Until the last atom has decayed? Until it is less radioactive than medical waste? Until it is less radioactive than the ore it was extracted from? The latter is about 2500 years. However, at this point all the remaining isotopes are long-lived: after half that time, your waste is only slightly more radioactive than the ore, and so on.

In my non-expert opinion, there are really only two isotopes you need to worry about: Cs-137 and Sr-90. Both have half lives around 30 years. So after a century, perhaps 2, there is very little left. At that time, everything with shorter half-lives is gone, and everything with longer half-lives is not all that radioactive.

I would also argue that waste should be reprocessed for medical uses before vitrification or whatever. There is a worldwide shortage of Tc-99m. We should extract the parent Mo-99 as soon as we can.

Note that extracting the remaining unburned fuel makes the waste more radioactive, not less. I think this is positive. You have less volume to dispose of. If you want a higher volume, well, OK, we'll just dissolve it molten glass.

fresh_42 said:

Anyway, this is all politics. I tried to tell you the differences between the US and Germany, but you preferred not to believe me. Instead, you find it acceptable to claim that Angela Merkel made a, quote: "rather poor" decision based on your ignorance of the German history and specific situation.

The decision was political, and we are fully aware of the political reasons it was made (note: most of those reasons are the same in the US for why nuclear power stalled-out in the '80s). The criticism is technical.

russ_watters said:

The decision was political, and we are fully aware of the political reasons it was made. The criticism is technical.

It is not. It is the official US policy reading. E.g., the US opposition to Russian gas is directly connected with the political interests of the US to sell fracking LNG. It is rather naive to call one statement politics which by the way was also rude, and simultaneously censor any alternative opinion which you will as soon as I truly make political comments which I avoided so far.

To call Merkel's decision "rather poor" while having a) your own interest and b) ignoring over 50 years of German history, and then call this "technical" is a flippancy. Do you say it this way? I had to look it up. If "rather poor" is "technical", will I herewith officially be allowed to use this "technical" wording all over the place? I mean, its technical, right?

fresh_42 said:

It is not. It is the official US policy reading. E.g., the US opposition to Russian gas is directly connected with the political interests of the US to sell fracking LNG.

It's tough to even wrap my head around that. You're claiming a hidden motivation for the criticism is that we're trying to advocate selling American gas? Really? No.

It is rather naive to call one statement politics which by the way was also rude, and simultaneously censor any alternative opinion which you will as soon as I truly make political comments which I avoided so far.

To call Merkel's decision "rather poor" while having a) your own interest and b) ignoring over 50 years of German history, and then call this "technical" is a flippancy. Do you say it this way? I had to look it up.

"rather poor" is an opinion based on the technical merits of the decision, at least for the most part. Yes, allusions were made to Russian gas, but that's an effect that wasn't really part of the decision. The decision was bad for technical reasons before that secondary effect happened.

russ_watters said:

The decision was bad for technical reasons before that secondary effect happened.

Sorry, but "rather poor" is an opinion. And a political opinion, too. I only asked why this was allowed. I tried to explain why it was wrong from a German point of view, but you commented basically that I would lie. These are all political statements and opinions. None of it is technical.

And what you cannot wrap your head around is a common point of view over here.

We are getting off-topic. Why do you post this discussion in that thread? (starting with post #185)

fresh_42 said:

Sorry, but "rather poor" is an opinion. And a political opinion, too.

Here's how it works: you alluded to safety. I guarantee that everyone in this thread already knew that opponents of nuclear power claim safety as a concern and we neither need nor want the "book' of political back-story to that belief/claim. Safety is almost completely a technical issue, and one response was safety statistics showing that by a particular common metric, nuclear power is in fact one of the safest sources of electricity. So again, that's a technical opinion/criticism, not a political one.

russ_watters said:

Here's how it works: you alluded to safety. I guarantee that everyone in this thread already knew that opponents of nuclear power claim safety as a concern and we neither need nor want the "book' of political back-story to that belief/claim. Safety is almost completely a technical issue, and one response was safety statistics showing that by a particular common metric, nuclear power is in fact one of the safest sources of electricity. So again, that's a technical opinion/criticism, not a political one.

The wording is not and you justify political comments as "technical" if they are along your own, American opinions, and as "political" if they are not along these lines. I would call this ... but that would immediately be deleted as "politics".

To a risk assessment always belongs the function of costs of a disaster a society accepts to carry versus the benefit it brings and to whom in case these risks are taken. The German society was obviously not prepared to accept that risk. This is a political decision, yes, and only marginally depending on your statistics. I tried to explain that by referencing a five decades old debate and with the comparison of the risk of a commercial flight. It is safer flying than driving to the airport, but in case you are in a plane that crashes, the statistics won't help a lot. So if someone makes his personal decision not to fly because of it, then it is unfair to call it a "rather poor" decision. It isn't poor for that person. The same holds for the German decision to quit nuclear energy. It was right for the German society. To call it "rather poor" is nothing else than an insult.

I only dared to mention that if it was the other way around, and I had called a US decision "rather poor" then I would immediately get attacked and it would be deleted as politics. Heck, even hell broke loose by asking about this discrepancy!

Thread closed pending moderation -- by someone else beside me.

After an extensive Mentor discussion, this thread will remain closed. It serves as a good illustration of why we try to keep threads from veering into politics.