With the same argument calling solar and wind renewables just because, hypothetically someone somewhere can fully recycle turbines and panels without having to extract new raw materials is an absurd and ridiculous lie (?)
Except it has happened at least once at >99% yield.
Otherwise, first fast reactor has been built in 1946, we're basically done and there's absolutely no more industrial research needed as it happened at least once /s
You're now trying to misdirect with an unrelated statistic. The current market saturation of recycling isn't the amount of a panel that can be recycled.
Breeding some fissile fuel is not closing the fuel cycle. No reactor has ever prodiced the same material it ran on. Closed cycle nuclear is not even proof of concept.
The current market saturation of recycling isn't the amount of a panel that can be recycled.
The current market for nuclear reprocessing isn't the amount reprocessable either.
But to adhere to your argument, it's the probability for a given panel to be recycled; if there isn't an economic rationale, because recycled materials from panels is more expensive than vergin materials, then it's called being out of market, not market saturation.
In reality we aren't recycling solar panels.
No reactor has ever prodiced the same material it ran on
This happen routinely even in non breeder reactors, industrial nuclear nuclear reprocessing is a thing and many reactors in the world run on MOX fuel with plutonium extracted from spent LWR fuel.
You only need a breeding ratio higher than 1 because otherwise fissile content will keep diminishing.
Arguably there's no more base research needed, both breeding and nuclear reprocessing are time tested process. What we need is industrial scale up, which is a little bit further than a proof of concept
You've now switched from closed cycle to using the dregs via reprocessing. Entirely unrelated concepts (and reprocessing is also ecologically awful and uneconomical in addition to not meaningfully reducing mining).
In reality all solar panels in large parts of europe built since 2015 will be recycled.
This happen routinely even in non breeder reactors, industrial nuclear nuclear reprocessing is a thing and many reactors in the world run on MOX fuel with plutonium extracted from spent LWR fuel. You only need a breeding ratio higher than 1 because otherwise fissile content will keep diminishing. Arguably there’s no more base research needed, both breeding and nuclear reprocessing are time tested process. What we need is industrial scale up, which is a little bit further than a proof of concept
A soup of random plutonium isotopes isn't usable for MOX. MOX-2 has never happened.
You cannot even keep your bizarre straw man tangent straight.
Entirely unrelated concepts
A closed cycle require reprocessing, how else would you recover fissile content in exhaust fuel? Magic?
in addition to not meaningfully reducing mining
Because of the low fissile content. Still 20% net reduction in virgin uranium
In reality all solar panels in large parts of europe built since 2015 will be recycled
This is a fallacy called Texas sharpshooter. We'll know if they will be recycled in 20 years, how can we verify this now? How can this be an argument of any value?
A soup of random plutonium isotopes isn't usable for MOX
This sentence doesn't make sense whatsoever, MOX-2 isn't even a thing that exist, you've just made it up...
This is a fallacy called Texas sharpshooter. We’ll know if they will be recycled in 20 years, how can we verify this now? How can this be an argument of any value?
No, because there is a specific piece of legislation mandating it, a clear well costed industrial plan, and idle recycling facilities waiting for panels to finally wear out.
What you've done is the "nothing can ever start happening more than it is now" fallacy which nuke shills love to roll out.
Not understanding that bombarding Pu240 and Pu239 with neutrons produces different isotope ratios than U238 is a very good way of demonstrating that you actually understand reprocessing /s
idle recycling facilities waiting for panels to finally wear out
If they're idle why can't reprocess actual panels ending in waste fields?
Also there's a big flaw in tour argument.
Tokyo protocol was a specific piece of legislation, reduction emissions plant etc.
So was that Paris agreement
And many others
Have we solved climate change?
Not understanding that bombarding Pu240 and Pu239 with neutrons produces different isotope ratios than U238
I beg you to read more than the first paragraph of Wikipedia.
Pu239 is fissile and is burned in place of the U235 content of enriched uranium.
Pu240 neutron capture and become Pu241, which is also fissile.
The matrix in most cases is still U238 usually from tailings.
When I say that what you say doesn't make sense is not an insult, literally, your words haven't a complete sense.
Not every neutron capture causes fission. And throwing a random soup of fissile and fertile elements in a hole is how you get a meltdown or no reaction -- they're not fungible. Please stop digging your ignorance-hole deeper.
Maybe consider that PV panels aren't kdentical and the ones built after the WESS are not the same? But there goes the nuance-allergy nuke shills have again.
Also this is all an incredibly stupid tangent in the first place, as renewables are renewable so long as they're at least as recyclable as the nuclear plant. Yet again demonstrating the inability to push over your own straw man.
Now you're also trying the condescending from a position of ignorance tactic on top of that. Stupid and ignorant or smug, pick one.
With the same argument calling solar and wind renewables just because, hypothetically someone somewhere can fully recycle turbines and panels without having to extract new raw materials is an absurd and ridiculous lie (?)
Except it has happened at least once at >99% yield.
And happens regularly commercially at >70% yield.
So you continue to repeat stupid and absurd lies.
Could you back your claims up?
Because in Europe and US the recycling rate if solar panels is around 10% and that without considering we might being miscalculating their real impact
Otherwise, first fast reactor has been built in 1946, we're basically done and there's absolutely no more industrial research needed as it happened at least once /s
You're now trying to misdirect with an unrelated statistic. The current market saturation of recycling isn't the amount of a panel that can be recycled.
Breeding some fissile fuel is not closing the fuel cycle. No reactor has ever prodiced the same material it ran on. Closed cycle nuclear is not even proof of concept.
The current market for nuclear reprocessing isn't the amount reprocessable either. But to adhere to your argument, it's the probability for a given panel to be recycled; if there isn't an economic rationale, because recycled materials from panels is more expensive than vergin materials, then it's called being out of market, not market saturation.
In reality we aren't recycling solar panels.
This happen routinely even in non breeder reactors, industrial nuclear nuclear reprocessing is a thing and many reactors in the world run on MOX fuel with plutonium extracted from spent LWR fuel. You only need a breeding ratio higher than 1 because otherwise fissile content will keep diminishing. Arguably there's no more base research needed, both breeding and nuclear reprocessing are time tested process. What we need is industrial scale up, which is a little bit further than a proof of concept
You've now switched from closed cycle to using the dregs via reprocessing. Entirely unrelated concepts (and reprocessing is also ecologically awful and uneconomical in addition to not meaningfully reducing mining).
In reality all solar panels in large parts of europe built since 2015 will be recycled.
A soup of random plutonium isotopes isn't usable for MOX. MOX-2 has never happened.
You cannot even keep your bizarre straw man tangent straight.
A closed cycle require reprocessing, how else would you recover fissile content in exhaust fuel? Magic?
This is a fallacy called Texas sharpshooter. We'll know if they will be recycled in 20 years, how can we verify this now? How can this be an argument of any value?
No, because there is a specific piece of legislation mandating it, a clear well costed industrial plan, and idle recycling facilities waiting for panels to finally wear out.
What you've done is the "nothing can ever start happening more than it is now" fallacy which nuke shills love to roll out.
Not understanding that bombarding Pu240 and Pu239 with neutrons produces different isotope ratios than U238 is a very good way of demonstrating that you actually understand reprocessing /s
If they're idle why can't reprocess actual panels ending in waste fields?
Also there's a big flaw in tour argument. Tokyo protocol was a specific piece of legislation, reduction emissions plant etc. So was that Paris agreement And many others Have we solved climate change?
I beg you to read more than the first paragraph of Wikipedia. Pu239 is fissile and is burned in place of the U235 content of enriched uranium. Pu240 neutron capture and become Pu241, which is also fissile. The matrix in most cases is still U238 usually from tailings.
When I say that what you say doesn't make sense is not an insult, literally, your words haven't a complete sense.
Not every neutron capture causes fission. And throwing a random soup of fissile and fertile elements in a hole is how you get a meltdown or no reaction -- they're not fungible. Please stop digging your ignorance-hole deeper.
Maybe consider that PV panels aren't kdentical and the ones built after the WESS are not the same? But there goes the nuance-allergy nuke shills have again.
Also this is all an incredibly stupid tangent in the first place, as renewables are renewable so long as they're at least as recyclable as the nuclear plant. Yet again demonstrating the inability to push over your own straw man.
Now you're also trying the condescending from a position of ignorance tactic on top of that. Stupid and ignorant or smug, pick one.