When asked about the federal government’s role, 41% of Americans say it should encourage the production of nuclear power.

Let’s get those new construction contracts signed!

  • lntlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I dunno if I’m right but here’s what I did:

    1. I googled “total global yearly energy production” for the 617 EJ
    2. I googled “what percentage of energy comes from nuclear globally” for the 10%.
    3. The “67,500 tons/year” and “6 million tons recoverable” came from the article you provided.

    The rest is arithmetic.

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your screenshot literally says electricity in the url, not energy.

      You’re now actively pretending to not understand the distinction rather than reading your own sources. Why double down when it’s already very obvious what you’re doing?

      • lntlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, that’s where I got the 10% from. Do you think I should use a different percentage?

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Your screenshot literally says electricity in the url, not energy.

          You’re now actively pretending to not understand the distinction rather than reading your own sources

          For anyone else reading this who isn’t a russian troll:

          617EJ is primary energy. 10% of this is 61EJ

          Electricity is around 100EJ (90EJ when that statistic was taken), 10% of 90EJ is 9EJ or the quantity of electricity produced by nuclear reactors from ~65,000t of natural U.

          Playing stupid games with arithmetic and pretending not to understand that electricity is a subset of energy just makes your attempt to palter look even stupider.

          • lntlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You seem really worked up and are being nasty. All of my numbers have sources, I’ve explained my whole process, and haven’t been nasty with you.

            What gives? Why you do me this way?

            The consumption rate in the article you provided is in tons/yr. That consumption rate is for primary energy. 617 EJ is also primary energy. 10% was the best stat I could find for what amount of that 617 EJ was from nuclear. I’ve asked you if you think a different percentage would be better and you dodged.

            Calculating out how long a finite resource will last with a fixed consumption rate is trivial and when I asked this question I was really curious why we came up with results that are orders of magnitude different. I’m not trolling you despite the paranoia that’s set in.

            • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh we’ve reached the crying victim stage of the troll. Nice.

              I’ve pointed out the tactic you used several times now. You can read any of the comments I made or your own sources if you want to try and figure out why 9/600 isn’t 0.1.

              • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You are clearly bullying the OP. Seems like you are intelligent and like angry that not everyone else is on the same page. I think OP held their own, I’d have crumbled after only one or two replies from you.

                • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You’re giving them far too much credit. The bad faith misapplication of arithmetic followed by demanding that other people untangle their exact “reasoning” is an intentional misinformation technique. Typically employed by fascists and nazi apologists, but not all anti-climate trolls are doing it to engineer dependence on russian uranium and gas so it is hard to tell whether they’re an astroturfer fkr rosatom, a fossil astroturfer, a uranium squeeze finance bro, someone who just really loves what’s happening to the people in places like Arlit or Adapa, or just a bad faith idiot.

                  People who are misinformed or ignorant deserve respect. Bad faith trolls do not.

              • lntlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Okay, let’s do it with your numbers.

                We’re still off quite a bit. How do you get a “few years of uranium” out of this?

                • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You are still pretending energy is electricity (the goal and context is to replace all fossil fuels, not just electricity) as well as for some bizarre reason pretending (insofar as your 7031t number could he assumed to have any meaning) enriched fuel grade uranium is natural uranium.

                  Why are you still trying? Your bullshit has been thoroughly called, there is no way to pretend you are acting in good faith.

                  Or is now the time you go on your gish gallop about non-existent breeders and reprocessing?

                  • lntlOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No, that’s the electicity number you gave me. Any idea how much ore you need to enrich uranium to 3%?