"Right" for the wrong reasons.

[T. A. Gardner]

Seriously, how many professions that you had does this one make?

So you're now a professor/teacher that involves nuclear power? And one of your students worked until retirement age? So that makes you what, between 70 and 100 yrs. old?

But I digress....regardless of your teaching and opinion, EVERYTHING I posted and link demonstrates that nuke power is NOT the completely safe, problem free and cheap energy source that the company line says. Sorry, but all who inadvertently or directly make their living from nuke power are insipidly stubborn (or genuinely naive) about the ramifications and history of nuke power in America. Look at the information I put forth in various discussions on this thread and tell me different.

Nothing is completely safe. The nuclear industry's record is far better than that of any other power generation type, solar and wind included. You simply fear it because you completely don't understand it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

See, this is what I was saying in the OP. Rather than recognize and accept the common goals and admitting to errors and problems with one's own belief system, people on both sides just dig in their heels, put on blinders, cover their ears and just parrot the myopic views that suit them.

What you did here was:

- try to make the comparison of the cost of clean up of failures with several energy sources as to justify the continuation of nuke plants and minimize their inherent/current/documented problems. That's apple and oranges, as drilling for oil in the ocean is a whole other smoke from firing up a nuke plant. You should note that the costs for Deepwater Horizon incorporate their legal claims suit with the actual clean up costs (all by BP estimates and such). Here's what your link left out about TMI:

Three Mile Island Unit-2 was built at a cost to ratepayers of $700 million. The plant was over budget and behind schedule. The planned operating life of the plant was 40 years. At the time of the core melt accident on March 28, 1979, TMI had operated for just 90 days. There were no decommissioning funds set aside.

In 1982, Gov. Richard Thornburgh cobbled together a $1 billion fund to pay for the removal of the damaged fuel. But funding problems did not go away.

Following the accident at TMI-2 , the NRC created the TMI-2 Advisory Panel. The Advisory Panel met 78 times in the vicinity of TMI-2, and met regularly with NRC commissioners. Inadequate funding for TMI-2’s future closure was a constant concern expressed by the advisory panel.

These concerns have become reality. On March 26, 2018, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimated the decommissioning price tag for TMI-2 to be $1.266 billion. The cost to clean up TMI-2, based on FirstEnergy’s most recent estimates, is $1.4 billion. That amount doesn’t cover the cost to remove radio*active waste from the island. https://triblive.com/opinion/eric-epstein-three-mile-island-cleanup-must-be-fully-funded/


- Now concerning your link regarding Ivanpah solar in the Mojave desert, you make the case against your initial assertions. Remember, the 55million is put to adjust the system as to not harm the native wildlife, NOT because it is a threat to humans, the water system, the air. And NOT because solar produces deadly waste that cannot be adequately rendered harmless. Given that the TMI clean-up is in the BILLIONS (and still growing) that does not include waste removal and containment, solar energy wins out as the logical and sane alternative.

- As for coal ... I agree that it's a nasty, dirty and EXPENSIVE mess to clean up. BUT your comparison of SEVERAL coal mines to ONE nuke plant makes my point and severely dilutes yours.

NOW I APPLAUD YOU FOR ACTUALLY TAKING THE TIME AND EFFORT TO BRING SOME FACTS AND RATIONAL DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC. Unfortunately for you, what you've done is inadvertently supported any and all aspects of the OP. But that's what a real discussion is all about, someone's wrong, someone's right or both can be right to a degree....or even agree on some points.

Thanks T.A., I knew you had it in you!

It was still, even by your estimates, cheaper to clean up than the Deepwater Horizon. It also didn't pose an ongoing environmental threat to wildlife of humans like Ivanpah has. It was cleaned up in the end. Eventually the wreckage of Ivanpah will have to be cleaned up, and hundreds of square miles of desert remediated.

‘Is this really green?’ The fight over solar farms in the Mojave Desert
https://www.latimes.com/world-natio...ion as they chase insects around the facility.

How solar farms took over the California desert: ‘An oasis has become a dead sea’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/21/solar-farms-energy-power-california-mojave-desert

The unexpected environmental drawbacks of concentrated solar power plants
https://www.theneweconomy.com/energ...-drawbacks-of-concentrated-solar-power-plants

 

[Taichiliberal]

Seriously, how many professions that you had does this one make?

So you're now a professor/teacher that involves nuclear power? And one of your students worked until retirement age? So that makes you what, between 70 and 100 yrs. old?

But I digress....regardless of your teaching and opinion, EVERYTHING I posted and link demonstrates that nuke power is NOT the completely safe, problem free and cheap energy source that the company line says. Sorry, but all who inadvertently or directly make their living from nuke power are insipidly stubborn (or genuinely naive) about the ramifications and history of nuke power in America. Look at the information I put forth in various discussions on this thread and tell me different.

Nothing is completely safe. The nuclear industry's record is far better than that of any other power generation type, solar and wind included. You simply fear it because you completely don't understand it.

I am SO tired of that stupid ass mantra from nuke power wonks! So since nothing is completely safe, that justify's doing thing that have patently proven not to be safe....worse yet that it produces by products that are even more unsafe!


GMAFB, would ya please?

And since I've documented that nuke power is NOT as safe as you say (safer than solar? Aren't you tired of parroting that stupid ass line...especially when the FACTS prove you wrong?) all you are doing here is with the SOS already addressed.

Give your nuke wonk mode a rest....seriously, I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
See, this is what I was saying in the OP. Rather than recognize and accept the common goals and admitting to errors and problems with one's own belief system, people on both sides just dig in their heels, put on blinders, cover their ears and just parrot the myopic views that suit them.

What you did here was:

- try to make the comparison of the cost of clean up of failures with several energy sources as to justify the continuation of nuke plants and minimize their inherent/current/documented problems. That's apple and oranges, as drilling for oil in the ocean is a whole other smoke from firing up a nuke plant. You should note that the costs for Deepwater Horizon incorporate their legal claims suit with the actual clean up costs (all by BP estimates and such). Here's what your link left out about TMI:

Three Mile Island Unit-2 was built at a cost to ratepayers of $700 million. The plant was over budget and behind schedule. The planned operating life of the plant was 40 years. At the time of the core melt accident on March 28, 1979, TMI had operated for just 90 days. There were no decommissioning funds set aside.

In 1982, Gov. Richard Thornburgh cobbled together a $1 billion fund to pay for the removal of the damaged fuel. But funding problems did not go away.

Following the accident at TMI-2 , the NRC created the TMI-2 Advisory Panel. The Advisory Panel met 78 times in the vicinity of TMI-2, and met regularly with NRC commissioners. Inadequate funding for TMI-2’s future closure was a constant concern expressed by the advisory panel.

These concerns have become reality. On March 26, 2018, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimated the decommissioning price tag for TMI-2 to be $1.266 billion. The cost to clean up TMI-2, based on FirstEnergy’s most recent estimates, is $1.4 billion. That amount doesn’t cover the cost to remove radio*active waste from the island. https://triblive.com/opinion/eric-ep...-fully-funded/


- Now concerning your link regarding Ivanpah solar in the Mojave desert, you make the case against your initial assertions. Remember, the 55million is put to adjust the system as to not harm the native wildlife, NOT because it is a threat to humans, the water system, the air. And NOT because solar produces deadly waste that cannot be adequately rendered harmless. Given that the TMI clean-up is in the BILLIONS (and still growing) that does not include waste removal and containment, solar energy wins out as the logical and sane alternative.

- As for coal ... I agree that it's a nasty, dirty and EXPENSIVE mess to clean up. BUT your comparison of SEVERAL coal mines to ONE nuke plant makes my point and severely dilutes yours.

NOW I APPLAUD YOU FOR ACTUALLY TAKING THE TIME AND EFFORT TO BRING SOME FACTS AND RATIONAL DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC. Unfortunately for you, what you've done is inadvertently supported any and all aspects of the OP. But that's what a real discussion is all about, someone's wrong, someone's right or both can be right to a degree....or even agree on some points.

Thanks T.A., I knew you had it in you!

It was still, even by your estimates, cheaper to clean up than the Deepwater Horizon. It also didn't pose an ongoing environmental threat to wildlife of humans like Ivanpah has. It was cleaned up in the end. Eventually the wreckage of Ivanpah will have to be cleaned up, and hundreds of square miles of desert remediated.

‘Is this really green?’ The fight over solar farms in the Mojave Desert
https://www.latimes.com/world-natio...ion as they chase insects around the facility.

How solar farms took over the California desert: ‘An oasis has become a dead sea’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/21/solar-farms-energy-power-california-mojave-desert

The unexpected environmental drawbacks of concentrated solar power plants
https://www.theneweconomy.com/energ...-drawbacks-of-concentrated-solar-power-plants

Repeating the SOS that was already addressed and logically, factually disproven point for point is just insipid stubbornness on your part....typical move of a nuke power wonk who's run out of steam. You're done on this point...care to discuss the others in the OP.

 

[Lightbringer]

My man, YOU stated that one of your students retired. Retirement usually is in either mid to late 50's or 65. So if you taught a 7th grader, and he went on to work at the plant until retirement, that would put you in your 70's or early 80's, NOT 57...even if you started teaching in your mid 20's. Yeah, doing the math cast serious doubt on your story.

And no, you can't satisfactorily refute what I posted throughout this thread...you can't do it logically or factually. And NO, the risks that are entailed with nuke plants and their waste is NOT necessary. I already posted FACTS that nuke power is not "cheaper" despite years of propaganda by the industry. And stubborn pride combined with willful ignorance and denial are deadly combinations. Just as a coal miner's widow trying to sue the company for criminal negligence.

And why the hell should I have to live with a potentially deadly risk because you believe otherwise? Especially when the documented evidence is on my side.

Here's the thing: this is NOT about your students. This thread is about how people not seeing a common goal or enemy due to partisan, near tribal stubbornness and ingrained beliefs. Some folk took up the nuke power issue because they felt comfortable in their dogma. I proved otherwise.

And the band played on.

Link it up, shouldn't be that hard if it's part of this thread.

Btw, excessive verbosity is not a sign of intelligence.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I am SO tired of that stupid ass mantra from nuke power wonks! So since nothing is completely safe, that justify's doing thing that have patently proven not to be safe....worse yet that it produces by products that are even more unsafe!


GMAFB, would ya please?

And since I've documented that nuke power is NOT as safe as you say (safer than solar? Aren't you tired of parroting that stupid ass line...especially when the FACTS prove you wrong?) all you are doing here is with the SOS already addressed.

Give your nuke wonk mode a rest....seriously, I'm embarrassed for you.

The government says it's better:

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

The experts say it's safer...
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf

Now, I can go get some greentard sites that blather on without a single fragment of evidence...

https://www.ecoideaz.com/expert-cor...clear-power-which-is-the-better-energy-source

https://close-to-nature.org/solar-energy-vs-nuclear-energy

But on the whole nuclear produces the power we need safely. Solar doesn't produce the power we need, can't produce the power we need, and isn't particularly safe in doing it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

This is why I never engage you. We aren’t going to see eye to eye on anything. But this is about defending what I said…or did NOT say. Nowhere in any of what I posted did I say “one of [my] students retired.” I simply did not say that.

Stop lying to yourself....you keep "engaging" me due to some obsessive need to be shown to be right in an open forum on some topics. Thing is, I can cut through your anecdotal BS and stay focused on the FACTS that you can't logically or factually refute. Also, unlike most, I can admit when I'm wrong on a point.

NOW HERE YOU ARE CORRECT...IT WAS NOT ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS BUT YOUR COUSIN THAT HAS RETIRED. I WAS WRONG ON THAT POINT, STAND CORRECTED AND APOLOGIZE.

That being said, you claim to teach from 7th grade to calculus. So that covers grade school, high school, college. So at 57, you'd have to be specific as to what kids from what education level went on to work at nuke plant facilities. What were their positions or jobs? Ages? See, your statements raise more questions that placate your assertions.

And despite all of that, you've offered NOTHING of documented supported items that factually or logically refute what I've posted throughout this thread. If you've got a new take on what has previously transpired in the chronology of the post, let's have it. Otherwise, you're just wasting time.

 

[Lightbringer]

Stop lying to yourself....you keep "engaging" me due to some obsessive need to be shown to be right in an open forum on some topics. Thing is, I can cut through your anecdotal BS and stay focused on the FACTS that you can't logically or factually refute. Also, unlike most, I can admit when I'm wrong on a point.

NOW HERE YOU ARE CORRECT...IT WAS NOT ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS BUT YOUR COUSIN THAT HAS RETIRED. I WAS WRONG ON THAT POINT, STAND CORRECTED AND APOLOGIZE.

That being said, you claim to teach from 7th grade to calculus. So that covers grade school, high school, college. So at 57, you'd have to be specific as to what kids from what education level went on to work at nuke plant facilities. What were their positions or jobs? Ages? See, your statements raise more questions that placate your assertions.

And despite all of that, you've offered NOTHING of documented supported items that factually or logically refute what I've posted throughout this thread. If you've got a new take on what has previously transpired in the chronology of the post, let's have it. Otherwise, you're just wasting time.

He didn't say that either. Do you bother to read the posts you respond to?

 

[Taichiliberal]

The government says it's better:

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

The experts say it's safer...
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf

Now, I can go get some greentard sites that blather on without a single fragment of evidence...

https://www.ecoideaz.com/expert-cor...clear-power-which-is-the-better-energy-source

https://close-to-nature.org/solar-energy-vs-nuclear-energy

But on the whole nuclear produces the power we need safely. Solar doesn't produce the power we need, can't produce the power we need, and isn't particularly safe in doing it.

do you even stop think things through before you post? You're so desperate to prove me wrong, you stupidly make my case.

You haven't factually or logically refuted anything I've posted. Instead you post a Dept of Nuclear Energy site (so now MAGA mooks are trusting the government), which essentially just gives the standard PR blather WITHOUT addressing all the things I've sourced throughout this discussion. What the hell do you think they were going to say? An honest, objective pro/con debate? That's like Texaco providing evidence against off shore drilling in a complete honest and objective way.

The IAEA article is a cute attempt at slight-of-hand....claiming that solar is more dangerous because it depends on mined materials. I noted that junior didn't take into account how recyclable solar panels are. Look it up, because I'm damned tired of doing your homework properly for you. When was the last time you read/heard the word "recyclable" when discussing nuke plants?

But what takes the cake is that the "greentard" sites actually provide a fact based, objective "pro/con" listings for nuke vs. solar....hell, one even says this: In general, when it comes to the debate on solar vs nuclear power, there is no clear consensus since each one draws their own conclusion. .... However, one thing’s clear: both solar and nuclear power sources are much better for the environment than fossil fuels.

I may not agree with the conclusion, and they do lean towards nuke power in that respect....but at LEAST they give food for thought.

But both of your "greentard" sites skim over the problem of nuke waste...the billion dollar industry surrounding that and how recently in some areas around the globe old storage sites have to be replaced. (and who pays for that?)

So once again, you FAIL to make your case. Instead you just give different versions of the SOS you've been shoveling all night (as with your final sentence). You're just a nuke power wonk on parrot mode....thinking if you can say it repeatedly or in different forms you prove your case.

Sorry toodles, but that dog of yours won't hunt. I'll catch you doing the SOS tomorrow. Later.

 

[Lightbringer]

The government says it's better:

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

The experts say it's safer...
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf

Now, I can go get some greentard sites that blather on without a single fragment of evidence...

https://www.ecoideaz.com/expert-cor...clear-power-which-is-the-better-energy-source

https://close-to-nature.org/solar-energy-vs-nuclear-energy

But on the whole nuclear produces the power we need safely. Solar doesn't produce the power we need, can't produce the power we need, and isn't particularly safe in doing it.

Good job! The more words taichifuckwit uses to respond to you, the more unhinged you've made him.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

do you even stop think things through before you post? You're so desperate to prove me wrong, you stupidly make my case.

You haven't factually or logically refuted anything I've posted. Instead you post a Dept of Nuclear Energy site (so now MAGA mooks are trusting the government), which essentially just gives the standard PR blather WITHOUT addressing all the things I've sourced throughout this discussion. What the hell do you think they were going to say? An honest, objective pro/con debate? That's like Texaco providing evidence against off shore drilling in a complete honest and objective way.

The IAEA article is a cute attempt at slight-of-hand....claiming that solar is more dangerous because it depends on mined materials. I noted that junior didn't take into account how recyclable solar panels are. Look it up, because I'm damned tired of doing your homework properly for you. When was the last time you read/heard the word "recyclable" when discussing nuke plants?

But what takes the cake is that the "greentard" sites actually provide a fact based, objective "pro/con" listings for nuke vs. solar....hell, one even says this: In general, when it comes to the debate on solar vs nuclear power, there is no clear consensus since each one draws their own conclusion. .... However, one thing’s clear: both solar and nuclear power sources are much better for the environment than fossil fuels.

I may not agree with the conclusion, and they do lean towards nuke power in that respect....but at LEAST they give food for thought.

But both of your "greentard" sites skim over the problem of nuke waste...the billion dollar industry surrounding that and how recently in some areas around the globe old storage sites have to be replaced. (and who pays for that?)

So once again, you FAIL to make your case. Instead you just give different versions of the SOS you've been shoveling all night (as with your final sentence). You're just a nuke power wonk on parrot mode....thinking if you can say it repeatedly or in different forms you prove your case.

Sorry toodles, but that dog of yours won't hunt. I'll catch you doing the SOS tomorrow. Later.

Solar panels are recyclable, but the cost to do so is so prohibitive it isn't worth doing it.

We Recycle Solar spends up to $25 per panel in processing costs to yield between $2 and $4 in value from aluminum, copper, lead, glass, silver and silicon. OEMs have lightweighted and used less valuable metals in newer generations of more-efficient products, which is great news from the manufacturing and consumer perspectives but not for recyclers
https://resource-recycling.com/recy...by cheaper more accessible disposal options.”

Thus, the idea that solar is renewable is a farce. The panels only last 20 to 30 years at most then can only be recycled at a major net loss. Compare that to nuclear where you can manufacture new fuel (Thorium 233 to Uranium 233 as one example) and the cost of recycling is less than the worth of material recovered. Also, the amount of recycled material is both in weight and volume a tiny fraction of what the equivalent energy production by solar would be (at most thousand of tons versus tens to hundreds of millions)

Nuclear waste is hardly a problem given all the necessary steps and materials have already been worked out. The problem is, once again, ignorance and fear--like you keep demonstrating. Spent fuel that has decayed to a steady state can easily be contained in drums designed to hold it for, well, nearly forever. The small amount of waste heat generated from the decay of long-lived fission fragments and radioactives, all alpha and beta emitters is easily managed, and the radiation given of is negligible.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

You've got nuke wonk myopia, my friend.

Life isn't safe, Taich. In the end, everybody dies.

The town made out big with the nuke plant.
It could have been radiated by an accident..
It could also been flattened by a tidal wave as well. With no nuke plant.

Some people wouldn't take the chance.
Others would and have.

At the end of the day, even if things go perfectly, you're not going to live much more than 100 years anyway.
And who the hell would want to?

 

[leaningright]

Life isn't safe, Taich. In the end, everybody dies.

The town made out big with the nuke plant.
It could have been radiated by an accident..
It could also been flattened by a tidal wave as well. With no nuke plant.

Some people wouldn't take the chance.
Others would and have.

At the end of the day, even if things go perfectly, you're not going to live much more than 100 years anyway.
And who the hell would want to?

This right here. Mr. Niblick and I are hardly going to agree on anything in politics. We have different views on most things. But he is spot on with this, IMO.

 

[Yakuda]

Who is this "we" your so full of invective about? Please post the sources that gave press releases EXACTLY AS YOU SAY. If you can't, then you're wrong. If you insist on repeating something that you cannot prove, that makes you a liar.

Your last sentence is yet another example of proud, willful ignorance...something that rational, logical and mature adults tend to avoid attempting a debate with. Carry on.

This is hilarious, a rube that thinks people with penises can be women is calling someone else a liar. You can find a time of people saying just what I said.

Mature adults? That leaves you out. See you could have addressed these issues differently but you had to be an asshole so you get what you get.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
do you even stop think things through before you post? You're so desperate to prove me wrong, you stupidly make my case.

You haven't factually or logically refuted anything I've posted. Instead you post a Dept of Nuclear Energy site (so now MAGA mooks are trusting the government), which essentially just gives the standard PR blather WITHOUT addressing all the things I've sourced throughout this discussion. What the hell do you think they were going to say? An honest, objective pro/con debate? That's like Texaco providing evidence against off shore drilling in a complete honest and objective way.

The IAEA article is a cute attempt at slight-of-hand....claiming that solar is more dangerous because it depends on mined materials. I noted that junior didn't take into account how recyclable solar panels are. Look it up, because I'm damned tired of doing your homework properly for you. When was the last time you read/heard the word "recyclable" when discussing nuke plants?

But what takes the cake is that the "greentard" sites actually provide a fact based, objective "pro/con" listings for nuke vs. solar....hell, one even says this: In general, when it comes to the debate on solar vs nuclear power, there is no clear consensus since each one draws their own conclusion. .... However, one thing’s clear: both solar and nuclear power sources are much better for the environment than fossil fuels.

I may not agree with the conclusion, and they do lean towards nuke power in that respect....but at LEAST they give food for thought.

But both of your "greentard" sites skim over the problem of nuke waste...the billion dollar industry surrounding that and how recently in some areas around the globe old storage sites have to be replaced. (and who pays for that?)

So once again, you FAIL to make your case. Instead you just give different versions of the SOS you've been shoveling all night (as with your final sentence). You're just a nuke power wonk on parrot mode....thinking if you can say it repeatedly or in different forms you prove your case.

Sorry toodles, but that dog of yours won't hunt. I'll catch you doing the SOS tomorrow. Later.

Solar panels are recyclable, but the cost to do so is so prohibitive it isn't worth doing it.

We Recycle Solar spends up to $25 per panel in processing costs to yield between $2 and $4 in value from aluminum, copper, lead, glass, silver and silicon. OEMs have lightweighted and used less valuable metals in newer generations of more-efficient products, which is great news from the manufacturing and consumer perspectives but not for recyclers
https://resource-recycling.com/recy...by cheaper more accessible disposal options.”

Thus, the idea that solar is renewable is a farce. The panels only last 20 to 30 years at most then can only be recycled at a major net loss. Compare that to nuclear where you can manufacture new fuel (Thorium 233 to Uranium 233 as one example) and the cost of recycling is less than the worth of material recovered. Also, the amount of recycled material is both in weight and volume a tiny fraction of what the equivalent energy production by solar would be (at most thousand of tons versus tens to hundreds of millions)

Nuclear waste is hardly a problem given all the necessary steps and materials have already been worked out. The problem is, once again, ignorance and fear--like you keep demonstrating. Spent fuel that has decayed to a steady state can easily be contained in drums designed to hold it for, well, nearly forever. The small amount of waste heat generated from the decay of long-lived fission fragments and radioactives, all alpha and beta emitters is easily managed, and the radiation given of is negligible.

Actually, the "farce" is how you continuously demonstrate your wonk-ish myopia in the material you supply to bolster your case. Here's what followed your excerpt;

In 2017, Washington state became the first state to pass a bill establishing an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for solar panels. Starting in July 2023, the law will require manufacturers to fund collection and recycling of the panels.

In California, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has considered adding solar panels to its electronics recycling program. The department is working with other branches of state government to draft a paper, expected to be released this year, on end-of-life management of PV panels.

In the meantime, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) late last year approved regulations (which were based on 2015 legislation) classifying PV modules as a universal waste, not a hazardous waste, easing regulatory burdens associated with collecting and shipping them. That being said, the panels are still considered hazardous if testing shows they exceed hazardous metals concentration limits in California or federal law, and universal waste handlers are required to do that testing when they discard the panels.

Essentially, the problems with recycling solar panels is political, not economical. It just takes the social/political will.

But recycling spent nuke fuel is cheaper? On what planet? Here's a site that details recycling of nuke plant materials: https://world-nuclear.org/informati...ecycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx

NOTE THE FOLLOWING from this site; In mid-2006 a report3 by the Boston Consulting Group for Areva and based on proprietary Areva information showed that recycling used fuel in the USA using the COEX aqueous process (see Developments of PUREX below) would be economically competitive with direct disposal of used fuel. A $12 billion, 2500 t/yr plant was considered, with total capital expenditure of $16 billion for all related aspects. This would have the benefit of greatly reducing demand on space at the planned Yucca Mountain repository.

But what's REALLY scary is this 2007 report to Congress, that states in no uncertain terms that it is cheaper to store spent nuke fuel than recycle it: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8808/11-14-nuclearfuel.pdf

Your last paragraph is (once again) a rehash of your supposition and conjecture laden clap trap. You need a new act, son.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You've got nuke wonk myopia, my friend.

Life isn't safe, Taich. In the end, everybody dies.

The town made out big with the nuke plant.
It could have been radiated by an accident..
It could also been flattened by a tidal wave as well. With no nuke plant.

Some people wouldn't take the chance.
Others would and have.

At the end of the day, even if things go perfectly, you're not going to live much more than 100 years anyway.
And who the hell would want to?

Post #37 puts forth fact based realities of what you won't address or deal with on this subject. That's why you parrot what I consider one of history's most stupid ass retorts.

Let me be clear; just because there is risk in everything we do DOES NOT justify continuing an action or process THAT HAS PROVEN THROUGH HISTORY NOT TO BE THE CHEAP, SAFE SYSTEM IT'S TOUTED TO BE.

"We'll there's been no Chernobyl here or radiation poisoning/mutations like a sci-fi movie, so it's all good." You wouldn't buy a car or a house with similar problems!

Your town LUCKED OUT when you were there. As the material I sourced showed, that luck is starting to run out.

Your last 2 sentences are irrational and irrelevant. No justification.

 

[Taichiliberal]

This right here. Mr. Niblick and I are hardly going to agree on anything in politics. We have different views on most things. But he is spot on with this, IMO.

Post #56. A fatalistic attitude doesn't cut it here.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Who is this "we" your so full of invective about? Please post the sources that gave press releases EXACTLY AS YOU SAY. If you can't, then you're wrong. If you insist on repeating something that you cannot prove, that makes you a liar.

Your last sentence is yet another example of proud, willful ignorance...something that rational, logical and mature adults tend to avoid attempting a debate with. Carry on.

This is hilarious, a rube that thinks people with penises can be women is calling someone else a liar. You can find a time of people saying just what I said.

Mature adults? That leaves you out. See you could have addressed these issues differently but you had to be an asshole so you get what you get.

translation: Yaky cannot logically or factually (much less rationally) defend or support his assertions and position, as the chronology of the posts shows.

Once again, I reduced him to a sputtering, fuming MAGA troll. No point in putting up with his nonsense, so I'll ignore him for a month or so,

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Actually, the "farce" is how you continuously demonstrate your wonk-ish myopia in the material you supply to bolster your case. Here's what followed your excerpt;

In 2017, Washington state became the first state to pass a bill establishing an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for solar panels. Starting in July 2023, the law will require manufacturers to fund collection and recycling of the panels.

In California, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has considered adding solar panels to its electronics recycling program. The department is working with other branches of state government to draft a paper, expected to be released this year, on end-of-life management of PV panels.

In the meantime, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) late last year approved regulations (which were based on 2015 legislation) classifying PV modules as a universal waste, not a hazardous waste, easing regulatory burdens associated with collecting and shipping them. That being said, the panels are still considered hazardous if testing shows they exceed hazardous metals concentration limits in California or federal law, and universal waste handlers are required to do that testing when they discard the panels.

Essentially, the problems with recycling solar panels is political, not economical. It just takes the social/political will.

But recycling spent nuke fuel is cheaper? On what planet? Here's a site that details recycling of nuke plant materials: https://world-nuclear.org/informati...ecycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx

NOTE THE FOLLOWING from this site; In mid-2006 a report3 by the Boston Consulting Group for Areva and based on proprietary Areva information showed that recycling used fuel in the USA using the COEX aqueous process (see Developments of PUREX below) would be economically competitive with direct disposal of used fuel. A $12 billion, 2500 t/yr plant was considered, with total capital expenditure of $16 billion for all related aspects. This would have the benefit of greatly reducing demand on space at the planned Yucca Mountain repository.

But what's REALLY scary is this 2007 report to Congress, that states in no uncertain terms that it is cheaper to store spent nuke fuel than recycle it: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8808/11-14-nuclearfuel.pdf

Your last paragraph is (once again) a rehash of your supposition and conjecture laden clap trap. You need a new act, son.

So, what you're in effect saying is that the state had to step in and force solar panel recycling because it isn't economically feasible. I'm sure in turn, the manufacturers raised prices on their panels to cover that cost 20 or 30 years down the road. The problem is economics. Recycling solar panels isn't cost effective. So, government stepped in and forced manufacturers to recycle.

As for nuclear fuel, even your quote above shows it's economical. Sure, the one plant to do it is expensive, but once built it will recoup the cost through recovery of fissionable material and other materials that can be used, along with reducing the cost of storage of leftover waste that isn't recyclable.

As for the CBO, their track record on scoring costs is abysimal.

 

[Lightbringer]

translation: Yaky cannot logically or factually (much less rationally) defend or support his assertions and position, as the chronology of the posts shows.

Once again, I reduced him to a sputtering, fuming MAGA troll. No point in putting up with his nonsense, so I'll ignore him for a month or so,

You did no such thing. Be better.