• C126
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    12 hours 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.

  • spicy pancake@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    14 hours 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

    • hissing meerkat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      24 hours 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.

      • Ropianos@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours 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!

  • AnAustralianPhotographer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day 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.

  • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    24 hours 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!

  • passiveaggressivesonar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I really don’t get this ackshually business about nuclear power, we’re absolute idiots to not employ it more. Everywhere there’s been a focus on nuclear power generation we’re seeing reliable results over a long long timespan

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Lemmy keeps telling me nuclear power is stupid. I’ve been screaming for more going on 30-years now. 🤷

        • A7thStone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          We’ve had multiple solutions for a long time. Name me some people who have been killed by nuclear waste. Other than Chernobyl I bet you can’t. How does it feel repeating decades old fossil fuel propaganda?

  • ryedaft
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day 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
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      24 hours 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 @feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours 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

  • ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    14 hours 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.

  • toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

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

    source

    • Morphit @feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      24 hours 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”.

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day 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.

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Just burn the waste

        Wouldn’t that like… eradiate our whole fucking atmosphere? O.o

        • Morphit @feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 day 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.

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            21 hours 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.

      • toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day 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 @feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day 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.

          • toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            14 hours 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 @feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              12 hours 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.