• spicy pancake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    517 months ago

    I thought this was going to be about how many turkeys you could cook directly using the reactor heat

    my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      127 months ago

      Be about 3x that number. Reactors are about 33-40% efficient. So a 1000 MW electric plant is running at 3000 MW thermal. Would be relatively easy too. Just a gigantic steam heated oven. So 7.5 million turkeys, enough to feed 90 million people or about a quarter of the US.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        47 months ago

        I doubt an oven needs 2400W continuous to keep at temperature. Also a single large oven will be far more efficient than 7.5 million separate ovens.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    18
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    2.5 Million Turkeys… and 500-1500 cubic meters of impossible to store basically forever radioactive nuclear (LILW) waste😋😋😋

    source

    • Morphit
      link
      fedilink
      English
      167 months ago

      1500 cubic meters

      Did you really pick the figure from the RBMK reactor type?

      For PWRs, 250 m³ of LILW per GW annum is 28.5 m³ of LILW per TWh.

      2.5 million turkeys in a 2.4 kW oven for 3.5 hours uses 0.021 TWh.

      So 2.5 million turkeys and 0.6 m³ total low and intermediate wastes generated. Most of this can be released after ~300 years with negligible activity over natural background. That is a long time but not “basically forever”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      117 months ago

      I’m not sure where they got those numbers.

      All nuclear waste produced to date isn’t 500-1500 cubic meters.

      As to storage. Just bury it again. We dug it up, we can bury it. There are a few places that are currently doing just that.

      Or, here a wild idea. Just burn the waste. It’s something like 90% unburned fuel, just reprocess it and burn it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        The source for that number is the International Atomic Energy Agency aka the nuclear control agency. As for the rest of your ideas, its sadly not that easy. It has to be stored somewhere where it cant contaminate the environment, water cant get to it, tectonics are stable, etc. No permanent storage location for the waste has been found, to date.

        And to burn the unburned fuel you would have to breed the material, which is a process that requires the most dangerous reactors and is extremely costly.

        • Morphit
          link
          fedilink
          English
          107 months ago

          No permanent storage location for the waste has been found, to date.

          Onkalo

          to burn the unburned fuel you would have to breed the material

          France reprocesses spent fuel. With increased scale it would be cheaper and cut down on the volume of waste that must be dealt with regardless of if there’s a nuclear industry in the future.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            17 months ago

            ah thats cool. I didnt know there finally was a permanent storage facility.

            As far as I know france stopped the breeder program?

            • Morphit
              link
              fedilink
              English
              6
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              The Phénix reactor shut down in 2009 so I think that was the end of France’s breeder reactors. India, China and Russia still have operating breeder reactors.

              Breeding from non-fissile material is different to reprocessing though. Reprocessing is a chemical process, not a nuclear one. The UK had an operational reprocessing capability - though it is being decommissioned now because it wasn’t cost effective with such a small fleet. Japan is still trying to bring its reprocessing plant online (after years of trouble). However France is doing it routinely for their domestic fleet and some foreign reactors IIRC. The USA made reprocessing illegal back in 1977 due to proliferation concerns. Despite that ban being repealed, they haven’t set up the regulatory infrastructure to be able to do it so no one has bothered. Maybe the new nuclear industry will shake that up a bit.

        • Morphit
          link
          fedilink
          English
          117 months ago

          They’re talking about recycling the fuel and putting it back into the reactors. Unfortunately it’s cheaper to mine fresh fuel than to reprocess used fuel … as long as you just ignore the waste problem.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            97 months ago

            Well, any waste problem is a hell of a lot better than what we’re doing to the atmosphere.

            Coal should be illegal now.

  • ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ
    link
    fedilink
    English
    57 months ago

    in a country where half of the presidents cant even pronounce nukular…and the only usecase for nukular is make some machines like openAI work cheaper. go eat the nukular waste george.

  • mosiacmango
    link
    fedilink
    English
    35
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The fun part of this is this is true of any 1GW power source. We have been deploying solar+battery arrays in that range recently for much less money and much faster than nuclear.

    Thanks “Office of nuclear energy” for pointing out how useful large scale solar+battery is too!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    45
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Rookie Numbers. It only uses electrical power generated. Why not cook turkeys in heat destined for cooling towers ? Gotta push those numbers way up.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      47 months ago

      Common on contrarian and alternative platform as this particular topic has been seeded by russia psyops against russian oil alternative.

      This is why germany shut down all its reactors and went back to burning lignite coal when nordstream was blown up by a ln Ukrainian triggerman.

    • SomeLemmyUser
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17 months ago

      Didn’t think people smart enough to use Lemmy would fall for american nuclear lobbying.

      Guys come on you can’t really think nuclear is better then renewables and everyone who thinks differently is having an agenda.

      If something like this ends up in my feed I wanna talk to the people and see how they ended up with such “interesting” positions, that’s all.

      (For what I can tell most are Americans and influenced by local consent manufacturing)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17 months ago

        Ah yes, the great and powerful American nuclear lobby… That hasn’t sold a new reactor in 30 years.

        Most people support nuclear because it’s the best base load generation method, and that can’t be replaced by renewables.

        You’re literally less than a degree of separation from the “nuclear is a Chinese psyop” people.

        • SomeLemmyUser
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Plutonium in nuclear waste has a half lifetime of 24 000 years

          The first structure which is counted as begin of civilization is was like 11 000 years ago.

          Advocating against them is not automatically russion propaganda bro.

          Being weary of companies who assure the public this will all be taken care of, just let them profit now is basic human sense.

          (And don’t come at me again with how bad fossils are, I advocate for stopping to use them to, it was just not the topic of the meme)

          You trying to put me in a drawer with conspiracy theorists is saying more about you then about me

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        37 months ago

        I wouldn’t say nuclear is better than renewables. I would say it’s a good at providing base load as we transition from fossil fuels over to renewables. That’s all.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    657 months ago

    Can we also talk about the way they chose to manipulate the perception of the data by their choice of states

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    37 months ago

    If you cook me a 15lb turkey in 3 1/2 hours that burnt dry shit is going in the trash.

    • Dude standing by a smoker with 10 lbs of pork ribs for the past 4 hours
  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    77 months ago

    If people didn’t all turn their oven on at the same time but took more of a staggered approach this would supply a lot more people.

    • hissing meerkat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      77 months ago

      No, it’s already wrong even for realistic staggered dinners.

      I think they are using an arbitrary GW-day of energy instead of power, so it can’t even come close to making as much turkey as claimed.

      • Morphit
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        They’re over by a factor of 6 which would add up to 21 hours, not 24. I don’t know what they’ve done to get 2.5 million, it should be 417 thousand with those numbers.

        Edit: Oh dear. They said each oven could completely cook 6 turkeys in a day so they rounded to that number. At least it no longer reads GW/day.
        The source

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    657 months ago

    if they claim a 15lb Turkey feeds 12, how am I supposed trust any of the other numbers?

    • hissing meerkat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      157 months ago

      Or how 1 GW/(200 W/person) came up with a number that started with a 3 instead of a 5. Like 5 million people, not 30 million.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        47 months ago

        But it only takes 3.5 hours per turkey and a day has 24 of them. So if some people get up at 3am it works out!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    197 months ago

    I’d like to see this redone using energy instead of power. E.g is 2,400 watts during the initial heatup or when the oven reaches stable temperature? They’re not taking into account the time change either.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      37 months ago

      2400W is typical maximum power for an oven. If you run that continuous you’ll have very crispy (black) turkey