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?
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.
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...
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
in the form of a gigantic airport
Turboprops can land on grass fields... I don't know where you live but there are thousands of very small airports with just one airstrip and a small building, if the passenger flow is not very big. Exactly as there are enormous but also small train stations.
The remaining infrastructure is flight control, which is a fixed cost indipendently by where you are 'cause for obvious reasons it needs to cover the entire country anyway. And indeed the advantages of a planes is that it has very little fixed cost, so it's way easier to reduce/increase or repurpose routes at need.
The second part is, at least partly, a fallacy. If countries stopped subsidizing all cars you would see less cars but also many people unable to satisfy their transportation needs. If countries stopped to subsidized food prices you would see food waste plummetting... But also people being able to afford less food.
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 ?
I think it's almost impossible, if you're attracted by this kind of "forumy" social network type you've almost certainly been to reddit as it exist since 2005.
Maybe one day Lemmy will have organic growth but it should need to become mainstream first so it's a long run, and it's expecially hard for a mostly-text social nowdays. We're not TikTok
the marginal cost of running a train on a near full capacity line is verse a plane
After a certain threshold train is much cheaper than plane, but that's only true for very busy routes. And it comes with less flexibility than a plane that can serve point-to-point basically every destination.
Trains are cool, but we should also look for a way (propfan engines, less emitting fuel, improvements in fuselage ecc.) to make aviation more sustainable because it's crazy to think it will go away anytime soon
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
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
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 (?)
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
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?
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.
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?
They received a grant from NLbet, but apparently they're having an hard time reaching the requirements for the next tranche