AbsolutelyNotABot

Well people also complain on expansion of agriculture land so I don't think consideration on land usage will disappear.

Real problem is that many people want the energy source which is clean, cheap, invisible, safe, doesn't consume any land or resources and of course has a easy to understand functioning. What could possibly go wrong ?

It's a little bit complicated and I don't want to write a wall of text but: Waste fuel can be recycled, if your reactor has a breeding ratio higher than 1 then it has net positive production of fissile materials. Potentially all uranium and thorium of the planet could be used.

The argument being, if you consider the word "renewable" in the strictest sense, no energy source is renewable, entropy can only increases: solar depends by the sun burning a finire amount of hydrogen, geothermy depends by earth inner heat which is a finire amount ecc.ecc. The common usage of renewable is along the line of "immensely big proportional to human consumption" and in this sense there's a strong argument to consider nuclear renewable.

While this is an understandable desire my question is as follow:

If you don't want ads, and don't want to pay for every service, how's all the internet system supposed to be sustainable on the long run? How should things be financed?

Nuclear fission is actually by definition the least renewable energy source

But if you go according the strict physical principle every energy source is non-renewable

The sun fuses a finire amount of hydrogen, earth has a finire amount of latent heat, the moon a finire amount of gravitational inertia etc.

And there's a little paradox if you think about it, how can fusion be non-renewable but solar, that use radiation from the sun fusion, be renewable?

but by the time that it's no longer viable the Earth will be long gone as well

But that's exactly the "problem", there's enough fertile material for potential millions of years of consumption, and that's for fission alone.

I think the debacle is more because the definition of "renewable" is a little arbitrary than the dilemma if nuclear is renewable or not

They received a grant from NLbet, but apparently they're having an hard time reaching the requirements for the next tranche

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

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.

This

One of the doubts I have is how all of this can be sustainable on the long term, because ok they run on donation now, but Lemmy is really small, a proper social network can't hold itself on 2 developers and the unpaid work of volunteers

Can all of this scale up?

mostly with conventional LWRs burning up our fuel rapidly

Well, yes, the obvious counter argument being that, you will never build more advanced reactors on scale (some are already available), or develop new fuel cycle if you stunt the evolution process and block the technology we already have.

Imagine saying to be favourable to installing solar panels but only when they will be 100% recyclable and with efficiency close to the theorical maximum

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...

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

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 (?)