[Update: Confirmed] Unlimited* Powaaa! – Scientists achieve net positive nuclear fusion reaction

[Dracarris]

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

And the reasons thats happened would apply to large scale building of fission plants. Economy of scale applies to power generation forms just like everything else.

 

Renewables started out expensive because very few were being built. It took time, experiance and large scale use before experiance in methods of construction, optimisation of component costs, and economies of scale brought the price down.

NPPs are in a completely different complexity galaxy, so no, I do not think these principles can easily be transferred. The current reactor types are also as mature as it gets, built/constructed for several decades and with the enormous construction costs, I would be surprised if any leverage for economical optimization would be left unused.

"Big scale" for NPPs does also not mean constructing the same amount of plants as for big-scale wind/solar since each plant has a vastly larger output but also construction cost and complexity, so one might argue that with the current and past amount of NPPs built, we already are at big-scale NPP.

 

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

Everything your complaining about is going to apply to fusion, its going to apply to any prospective battery banks to let renewables take over baseload, and any number of other greenification technologies in various industries.

Well, no. Only fission has finite fuel supply, only fission has the disaster potential it has and the associated risk/insurance problems, only fission creates radioactive waste in significant amounts as well as radioactive contaminated buildings/plants that are insanely costly to dismantle, I think those are quite some discriminating points.

 

As much as I think fission is the only bridge technology we currently have, I also have to admit that there are some strong points against it. However, I think many of those come from the fact that we, the human race, neglected to do appropriate NPP research in a timely manner (thanks to utter BS politics and irrational fear) and now it's simply too late.

 

Even if we'd start large-scale NPP construction now, by the time those plants would be finished (in 20-30 years which is part of the insanity), we'd have missed all the central and crucial greenhouse gas reduction goals already.

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Many solar panels are replaced well before the 25 year mark due to fading output.  I have a shed full of panels (8 really) that were literally thrown out because they couldn't power a 12V fluro for more than a few hours after a day in the Australian sun.

Again, that's going to greatly depend on the quality of solar.  Like I said, a good quality solar panel is going to be rated to last 30+ years.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

That's still incredibly unfeasible,  no one is going to take $30 from a consumer today and guarantee that they will be able to recycle the panel properly in 25 years using that $30.  The only way that could happen would be with an investment fund setup by the government to cover the costs and essential bank roll it for the first 50 years until it had enough momentum to pay for itself.       Or you know, we could just build Nuclear and Skip all that.

Well the current cost is $30/panel.  The likelyhood is that the cost will drop, but still the general fact is that if we go by the current amount of $30/panel we know that facilities already exist.  The way it would work, a government fund is setup (at least in BC we already have similar funds for other recyclable products) and each panel sold the $30 gets put into that fund. The fund then pays out to providers who take in the solar panels and recycle them.  So providers that take in the $30/panel would essentially make a profit by optimizing and the recovery of resources.

 

To scale nuclear to any meaningful level is also going to take decades.  Which brings me back to my point, we need to utilize all forms of renewables and nuclear.  No one solution works

[mr moose]

20 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Not really sure you read any part of those sources properly. They used external sources that were created independently from German government. Large parts of the current gov are also pro-nuclear, just to be clear.

 

And it's a fact that the cost for renewables has come down dramatically already and will continue to do so, especially wind and solar.

 

Constructing new NPPs (since your source talks about cost of newly built plants) has also been turned out to be highly difficult/problematic with lots of cost explosions and other problems during construction, e.g., in France or Sweden. In addition there are some icky details like basically no one ready to offer insurance policies for NPPs anymore despite how safe they are. I'm afraid humanity as a whole has greatly screwed up researching better and different reactor times at the appropriate points in time - now it's simply too late and the current principle is in essence still a glorified water boiler.

So you are basically ignoring the fact that IEA not only directly contradicts the German sources with cited research but also draws the same conclusions as many other studies.

I have cited two sources that show nuclear power is as cheap if not cheaper to run than onshore wind and solar but you'd rather stick to the German view.

 

16 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Again, that's going to greatly depend on the quality of solar.  Like I said, a good quality solar panel is going to be rated to last 30+ years.

25 years or 30 years.  we are still talking a longevity that is substantially shorter than nuclear at a higher cost with an unknown end of life issue.

16 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well the current cost is $30/panel.  The likelyhood is that the cost will drop, but still the general fact is that if we go by the current amount of $30/panel we know that facilities already exist.  The way it would work, a government fund is setup (at least in BC we already have similar funds for other recyclable products) and each panel sold the $30 gets put into that fund. The fund then pays out to providers who take in the solar panels and recycle them.  So providers that take in the $30/panel would essentially make a profit by optimizing and the recovery of resources.

 

To scale nuclear to any meaningful level is also going to take decades.  Which brings me back to my point, we need to utilize all forms of renewables and nuclear.  No one solution works

 

This is the best case for recycling solar panels that I can find,  there are others but they read like piss and wind to me. 

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/19/1032215/solar-panels-recycling/

 

It just seems like people are playing a money game here with renewables when nuclear could have easily been brought into play by now,  every day they don't do it is another day we have to contend with inefficient renewables that require more rare earth materials, more land clearing, more mining and more money.    If there is one argument that really makes climate change look like an artificial excuse to rend money from us it is the fact that this climate emergency is being resolved with technologies that not only are failing during winters in some countries and summer in LA, but are not beneficial for the earth in their current form.   

[Dracarris]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

So you are basically ignoring the fact that IEA not only directly contradicts the German sources with cited research but also draws the same conclusions as many other studies.

I have cited two sources that show nuclear power is as cheap if not cheaper to run than onshore wind and solar but you'd rather stick to the German view.

Again, this is NOT the „German view“ aka some political, subjective standpoint.

And the IEA studies only refer to new NPPs and even then make it very clear that certain conditions must be met. I‘m also wondering if they considered costs for dismantling and long-term fuel storage.

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

just seems like people are playing a money game here with renewables when nuclear could have easily been brought into play by now,  every day they don't do it is another day we have to contend with inefficient renewables that require more rare earth materials, more land clearing, more mining and more money. 

Ah come on, that‘s a vast exaggregation. Especially the mining part. As if mining uranium isn‘t highly problematic as well.

Construction of new NPPs is a huge endeavor and takes decades to complete. Ofc we should not shut down existing plants prematurily. But for the construction of new ones it‘s simply to late at this point, we screwed this up (incl the research of novel reactor types).

 

[Mark Kaine]

16 hours ago, Dracarris said:

But for the construction of new ones it‘s simply to late at this point, we screwed this up (incl the research of novel reactor types).

this is always such a weird argument... when people started building the first reactors no one said "we don't have time" they just did it and used whatever else was available in the meantime... this concept hasn't changed at all. Ergo, its only "too late" until a competent government changes course, then its suddenly not "too late" anymore. 

In fact, the opposite is true, it's kinda "too late" to look for alternatives,  had 30+ years and did nothing (even wind energy, besides hydro the simplest solution,  keeps getting dismissed for petty and stupid reasons) 

[starsmine]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

this is always such a weird argument... when people started building the first reactors no one said "we don't have time" they just did it and used whatever else was available in the meantime... this concept hasn't changed at all. Ergo, its only "too late" until a competent government changes course, then its suddenly not "too late" anymore. 

In fact, the opposite is true, it's kinda "too late" to look for alternatives,  had 30+ years and did nothing (even wind energy, besides hydro the simplest solution,  keeps getting dismissed for petty and stupid reasons) 

Its to late beacuse the carbon cross over point building new is 20 years away because of the long build times and the CEMENT.

basiclly, a new naturals gas plant, built today, would have produced LESS carbon then a new nuclear plant, until 20 years later. The problem is, for the goals of limiting climate change, you cant just spike today for a lower 2045. (and yes nuclear produces far less for the next 30 years, and over its entire life

Yes nuclear is and was the answer, long term. but the rapid decarbonizing we need to do now through 2050, it falls on its face.
Renewables are the answer today. with li-ion today, and flow batteries in 5-10 years because li-ion as a battery storage for the grid is just really really dumb.

My stuff is in terms of fission. Fusion is a different equation.

 

[Mark Kaine]

12 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Its to late beacuse the carbon cross over point building new is 20 years away because of the long build times and the CEMENT.

basiclly, a new naturals gas plant, built today, would have produced LESS carbon then a new nuclear plant, until 20 years later. The problem is, for the goals of limiting climate change, you cant just spike today for a lower 2045. (and yes nuclear produces far less for the next 30 years, and over its entire life

Yes nuclear is and was the answer, long term. but the rapid decarbonizing we need to do now through 2050, it falls on its face.
Renewables are the answer today. with li-ion today, and flow batteries in 5-10 years because li-ion as a battery storage for the grid is just really really dumb.

My stuff is in terms of fission. Fusion is a different equation.

 

yeah... i mean how can it be "too late" when we don't really have a better option... even *if* its too late (which i don't believe)  its still the right thing to do (since we don't have anything better rn)

 

 

14 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Renewables are the answer today.

you can do that additionally,  but im highly skeptical this is a good answer (because it really depends how its sourced and what is even classified as "renewable") <-- even if done right, i think the effects just wouldn't be enough,  especially not when its the only thing being done. (as i said wind... the best option... receives fierce resistance in certain countries,  that just shows "renewable" is more a marketing gag than a serious consideration) 

actually a lot of things considered "renewables" still produces co2... hence i think that its actually too late to be a good consideration... additionally yes, sure, as long it makes sense (but unfortunately "renewables" can be very harmful too when done wrong)

 

tldr: it doesn't look like something is actually done with shutting down nuclear power plants and not building new ones "for reasons"... its just the absolutely wrong thing to do *right now* since there just aren't any good alternatives (only theoretical stuff, which frankly doesn't help since its just theoretical lol)

 

real tldr: if they were serious about renewables we would have gigantic windfarms by now everywhere,  but we don't... 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

The problem is, for the goals of limiting climate change, you cant just spike today for a lower 2045. (and yes nuclear produces far less for the next 30 years, and over its entire life

Yes nuclear is and was the answer, long term. but the rapid decarbonizing we need to do now through 2050, it falls on its face.
Renewables are the answer today. with li-ion today, and flow batteries in 5-10 years because li-ion as a battery storage for the grid is just really really dumb.

I'll have to try and find the study again but did you know meeting and greatly exceeding the Paris Accords climate goals is as "simple" as global average human weight loss of 10%. That alone due to transportation and reduction in food consumption is basically all we need to do to.

 

Just look at any carbon emissions breakdown pie chart and see how much would be reduced by lowering average human population weight.

 

For non direct human influences like this I like to focus on health and environment benefits. Talking carbon emissions basically is a lost argument from the start because few care about it in that context delivery. Talking about improving city air quality has a clear and obvious benefit in just living quality and then health benefits. Talking about improving water and water way quality is something most people will agree is a good thing. Being able to swim in water and not get sick or worse see that water is so bad that getting in to it would be disgusting is hard to argue against.

 

There are counter arguments to what is required to be done to achieve a lot of these but at the very least the context of the discussion has a foundation of things that are easily understood and has benefits that can be understood. The fact that doing these will also address carbon emissions is just another underlying benefit but in my opinion is a lesser concern to improving life and health quality outcomes.

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-health-benefits-of-paris-climate-goals-could-save-millions-of-lives-by-2040/

[mr moose]

19 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Again, this is NOT the „German view“ aka some political, subjective standpoint.

And the IEA studies only refer to new NPPs and even then make it very clear that certain conditions must be met. I‘m also wondering if they considered costs for dismantling and long-term fuel storage.

Ah come on, that‘s a vast exaggregation. Especially the mining part. As if mining uranium isn‘t highly problematic as well.

Construction of new NPPs is a huge endeavor and takes decades to complete. Ofc we should not shut down existing plants prematurily. But for the construction of new ones it‘s simply to late at this point, we screwed this up (incl the research of novel reactor types).

 

Do you just like disagreeing with me or something.  It's like you will go to any length to have an argument. 

 

It really seems you are just making this stuff up as you go along, maybe trying to google supporting evidence for your arguments.  You are still trying to defend 1 article put together by a questionable organization that is at odds with nearly every other authority on the subject.   No matter how you try to spin it, nuclear power is still way cheaper than nearly all other viable options. 

 

The reality is we are talking about building new plants, not old ones,  anything we design and build today will be new.  No one is arguing to build old technology nuclear. to even bring that up and then used the tired old "long term storage" as if that is actually a problem, guess what, it isn't a problem and has never really been a problem except for those who are scared by big words easy.  The total volume of toxic nuclear waste produced since the end of WW2 is about the same as the amount of toxic waste produced by coal burning plants every hour.   Nuclear waste is incredibly dense and thus incredibly small. 

 

But hey, lets keep perpetuating the concept that nuclear waste is huge and lasts fir millions of years slowly poisoning everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

[Lightwreather]

So, it appears the US is now planning to build a Commercial Fusion reactor…

Quotes 

Quote

The US is planning to build a commercial nuclear fusion power plant in the next few years following a major breakthrough with the energy source this week.

Quote

Experts have warned that the first fusion-based power plant will take billions of dollars and many more years to realise, though the Department of Energy offered $50 million research grants to develop blueprints for a utility-scale pilot plant.

Advocacy group Fusion Industry Association claimed that at least 15 private fusion companies have applied for the grants, with applications closing on Thursday.

Okay, this is ummmm… definitely jumping the gun. As much as I like the idea, it should be pretty obvious that this is much too freaking early. I mean, as stated before, we still need much more efficient tech. But hey, maybe one of these ideas is the one we're looking for.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/nuclear-fusion-power-plant-commercial-b2246755.html

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, Lightwreather JfromN said:

So, it appears the US is now planning to build a Commercial Fusion reactor…

Quotes 

Okay, this is ummmm… definitely jumping the gun. As much as I like the idea, it should be pretty obvious that this is much too freaking early. I mean, as stated before, we still need much more efficient tech. But hey, maybe one of these ideas is the one we're looking for.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/nuclear-fusion-power-plant-commercial-b2246755.html

I'd likely expect much of the project and it's planning is based on future technology breakthroughs. Much of the building construction and supporting facilities can be built well in advance without factoring in what the actual generating "device" is.

 

Ground works take forever, preparing the site with the required electrical distribution takes forever, site safety and risk assessments are always ongoing and changing. Getting everything inspected and certified that can be as soon as possible is a smart thing to do and will greatly reduce overall project time frame.

 

Willing to bet the assumption will be whatever proposal is chosen will be full of flaws and missed details and will need addressing as they go.

 

Doesn't really sound much different to the first US fission reactor situation. When they started it was also "too soon", have to start at some point otherwise technology developments will be devoid of practical application knowledge and experience which will impede progression speed and quality, likely also safety.

[Quackers101]

15 minutes ago, Lightwreather JfromN said:

So, it appears the US is now planning to build a Commercial Fusion reactor…

 

The US is planning to build a commercial nuclear fusion power plant in the next few years following a major breakthrough with the energy source this week.

seems like BS, as the US is already funding the global project in, france? (ITER)
Also as other in the area stated, smaller working versions or testing versions has to be built and a lot are doing that to a lot of work into this area.

Jumping the gun from whatever this sounds like or has to be a joke. or from what was stated there or its not based on the breakthrough itself and a new one, and just more funding for general fusion projects?

Quote

many more years to realise. 50 million research grants to develop blueprints. 15 private fusion companies have applied for the grants.

[TetraSky]

300MJ to create 2.05MJ which in turn created 3.15MJ... Even if they could knock 20% off that by changing the lasers, that would still be 240MJ going in. Am I understanding this right?
While net positive fusion will be great, this doesn't sounds like it's a positive yet to me. 

[Dracarris]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

It really seems you are just making this stuff up as you go along, maybe trying to google supporting evidence for your arguments.  You are still trying to defend 1 article put together by a questionable organization that is at odds with nearly every other authority on the subject.   No matter how you try to spin it, nuclear power is still way cheaper than nearly all other viable options. 

JFC, I don‘t know how often I have to repeat this, we are now at #3: This is not ONE article for Christs sake!! It summarizes the findings and studies of SEVERAL EXTERNAL sources and studies! How about for once you read properly what I write and my sources?? Can you stop this utter nonsense of everything in this report being invalid because the German government touched it? Like for real, that‘s just BS?

I even put screenshots of the relevant plots where you can clearly see that they weren‘t done by the German governemnt.

 

And nuclear being universally the cheapest option, as you put it, is simply not true if you actually look at the spectrum of available studies and reports, and at the prerequisits for nuclear being cheapest in the ones that come to this conclusion.

Also, no matter how little waste gets produced, its long-term storage is insanely costly and not putting that into fission operating costs just paints an incomplete picture, same for dismantling costs.

 

Finally, as time moves on and more nuclear energy gets produced, mining fission fuel will get more expensive as there are only finite amounts available, plain and simple, and therefore fission energy, while for renewables the opposite is true.

 

Then, regarding new plants being ready only in a few decades: Newly built renewable plants will in comparison start producing energy tomorrow and therefore help cutting greenhouse gases immediately, so yes, that is an actually very valid and important point.

 

All this could be avoided if we finally manage to come up with a reactor type that uses fuel in a fundamentally different way/type (eg uses more than 10% of the energy of the fuel, leaving not highly energetic waste behind) and is not a glorified water boiler and a side product of producing nuclear weapons.

Compare copper subscriper line usage for all the fancy DSL standards which top out at a fraction of what fiber can easily achieve as it was made for fast data links from the very ground up.

[Mark Kaine]

3 hours ago, Dracarris said:

All this could be avoided if we finally manage to come up with a reactor type that uses fuel in a fundamentally different way/type

i think we already have that, but since they aren't building new ones for irrational reasons... welp!

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

 

 

(doesn't use uranium for one)

 

[Dracarris]

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

Thorium is one of the types that I had in mind, however aren't they still in their infancy and quite far from commercial operation? Well not nearly as far as Fusion..

[Mark Kaine]

8 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Thorium is one of the types that I had in mind, however aren't they still in their infancy and quite far from commercial operation? Well not nearly as far as Fusion..

yeah, but not for technical reasons... its basically the same problem as why we don't have "gigantic windparks" (in adequate amounts at least) lobbyism and poor politics. 

 

Quote

There are at least seven types of reactors that can use thorium as a nuclear fuel, five of which have entered into operation at some point. Several were abandoned not for technical reasons but because of a lack of interest or research funding (blame the Cold War again). So proven designs for thorium-based reactors exist and need but for some support.

 

Those things could be operational since 20 odd years at least... and there are *no* real technical reasons they aren't. 

 

 

 

21 hours ago, leadeater said:

Just look at any carbon emissions breakdown pie chart and see how much would be reduced by lowering average human population weight

this is what bothers me most about these discussions and the whole situation... people seem (i say seem because i honestly don't believe them) to be completely oblivious about the fact that they could relatively easily and effectively do something against the "climate catastrophe", but no "its the big corporations" and "its too late anyway" so they more or less decided to do nothing but blame pretty much anyone else but themselves and "nothing can be done"... 

 

like I think i would actually prefer if they just said "i dont care about the environment etc" which would at least be honest (there are these types too tbf lol)

 

[starsmine]

21 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

real tldr: if they were serious about renewables we would have gigantic windfarms by now everywhere,  but we don't... 

We do have gigantic wind farms everywhere, and they are being built at a rapid pace. Have you been to the midwest?

Wind is the growing at a ridiculously rapid pace
https://cleangridalliance.org/focus-areas/projects
https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-finds-record-production-and-job-growth-us-wind-power-sector#:~:text=Wind power accounted for 32,power 40 million American homes.

Quote

Wind power accounted for 32% of U.S. energy capacity growth in 2021, employs 120,000 Americans, and now provides enough energy to power 40 million American homes. 

 

• Quote

  Wind energy provided more than 9% of total electricity nationwide, more than 50% in Iowa and South Dakota and 30% in Kansas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota.

 

 

Also as a side not, notice those are all states that average temps are WAY colder then Texas. 

[Mark Kaine]

31 minutes ago, starsmine said:

We do have gigantic wind farms everywhere, and they are being built at a rapid pace. Have you been to the midwest?

i mean, umm, no, i wasn't,  only in NYC a couple of times... but i was (kind of obviously if you followed the discussion) talking about a different region (basically the whole of EU) which im sure does have "some" windparks, but not nearly enough. 

And while thats great if the US finally woke up, the nearly same argument could be made, this should and could have been done much earlier ... but still, better late than never, for sure...

(i mean pretty sure they say the same thing here, "rapid pace" but in actuality they aren't actually doing it,  "for reasons"... )

 

Same for hydro, btw, sure we have it, but not nearly enough,  a few countries in Europe have nearly 100% energy coverage by hydro power, but the others are basically more occupied with finding reasons why that cant be done (lobbyism at it again basically) 

^not every country could do 100% hydro due to geographic situation,  but it could be done a lot more anyways for sure (and again the same thinly veiled arguments are being made as for other green energy alternatives, why it "cant be done")

[starsmine]

4 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

i mean, umm, no, i wasn't,  only in NYC a couple of times... but i was (kind of obviously if you followed the discussion) talking about a different region (basically the whole of EU) which im sure does have "some" windparks, but not nearly enough. 

And while thats great if the US finally woke up, the nearly same argument could be made, this should and could have been done much earlier ... but still, better late than never, for sure...

(i mean pretty sure they say the same thing here, "rapid pace" but in actuality they aren't actually doing it,  "for reasons"... )

 

Same for hydro, btw, sure we have it, but not nearly enough,  a few countries in Europe have nearly 100% energy coverage by hydro power, but the others are basically more occupied with finding reasons why that cant be done (lobbyism at it again basically) 

Hydro we have damned every river that can do hydro. There is no real growth in hydro. 

US woke up over a decade ago with wind.



It has gone from .3% of the grid to 10% of the grid in 20 years. Though PTC expires this year.

I will say, we had a capacity of 135GW in 2021, and Build back Better was set to deploy leasing to create an additional 25GW onshore by 2025, and 30GW of offshore by 2030.

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-haaland-outlines-ambitious-offshore-wind-leasing-strategy
So that's 55GW more of capacity just from one singular program alone. There will be companies that build more on land already leased, or on private land rather then government land, like leasing off of a farmer, which is what happens in the midwest. However, with PTC dead, Im not fully informed on how the incentive structure works for them, last time PTC went away for a year in 2013, much of our rollout was stalled.

We should still expect to be geting close to 20% of total grid to be wind by 2030.

[Mark Kaine]

46 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Hydro we have damned every river that can do hydro. There is no real growth in hydro. 

oh yeah, the us surely is a different situation geographically,  but here it could be really done a lot more, it was in the past... but not anymore (for aforementioned "reasons")

 

46 minutes ago, starsmine said:

US woke up over a decade ago with wind.

as i said, better late than never...

 

 

[Dracarris]

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

(basically the whole of EU)

Not exactly sure about other countries, but for Germany wind alone accounts for ~20% of the electricity and renewables altogether for around ~40%

 

https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Energie/Erzeugung/Tabellen/bruttostromerzeugung.html

 

Full EU is apparently around 15%

https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=EU&year=2021&interval=year

 

Also note the share between fossile, renewables and nuclear. For 2021, the former two are literally identical up to a permille.

 

All-Europe, not only EU, paints a slightly better picture overall due to increased hydro share

https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=ALL&year=2021&interval=year

[mr moose]

19 hours ago, Dracarris said:

JFC, I don‘t know how often I have to repeat this   ...    for Christs sake!!   ...   How about for once you read properly what I write   ... Can you stop this utter nonsense...

 

 

You don't sound like someone with evidence to support their claims.

 

I'm Still waiting for you to show why the IEA are wrong, Here are two more that say otherwise too.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32820449/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/05/what-does-nuclear-power-really-cos

 

And just so you know yes I did ignore a few studies, they were either published by the nuclear industry or were lobbyists for the renewable sector,  so i figured they could be ignored.

 

Just like everyone else who tries to make claims about nuclear energy, you are stuck in the old myths about waste control, about building costs etc.  People who like to write up long winded articles pontificating the virtues of wind and solar while denigrating the value of nuclear all tend to make the same mistakes or fall for the old myths.

 

And the funniest thing about this discussion is that I only ever claimed that fuel was the cheapest part of nuclear, as is true, yet because you realized you couldn't dispute that you have tried to sway it around to all costs including building and waste, which when included still work out cheaper than solar and on par with wind. 

[Mark Kaine]

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

waste

the real irony is that the german government specifically chose the worst possible place to store a majority of their waste , where literally everyone told them is the worst place possible... and now are all like "well this shit is expensive! "

Sure is, if you're doing absolutely everything completely wrong despite warnings of experts etc...

[Dracarris]

38 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Just like everyone else who tries to make claims about nuclear energy, you are stuck in the old myths about waste control, about building costs etc. 

So here are some "myths" about building costs for you

- The dismantling of the 3 Swiss NPPs will cost around 23 Billion USD

- The dismantling of one NPP in Germany will cost 6.5 Billion Euro - payed by the taxpayer, not priced into energy costs

- The most recent French NPP will cost 12.7 Billion Euro and will finish in 2023 - planned: 3.4 Billion Euro and 2012. Over 3x price increase and 11 years of delay

 

All myths?

 

And where exactly are the suitable long-term waste storage depots for European waste?

38 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And the funniest thing about this discussion is that I only ever claimed that fuel was the cheapest part of nuclear, as is true, yet because you realized you couldn't dispute that you have tried to sway it around to all costs including building and waste, which when included still work out cheaper than solar and on par with wind. 

No, you claimed that nuclear energy was "the cheapest", multiple times. Yes, you also claimed that mining Uranium is "dirt cheap". And up to now you could not show how mining tons of slightly radioactive rocks and processing them is supposed to be "dirt cheap". Also, if NPP fuel indeed is dirt cheap - it would only be a small part of the overall cost of nuclear energy.

And the last part about costs compared to wind and solar are still not true, especially universally, no matter how often you repeat this.

38 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You don't sound like someone with evidence to support their claims.

I gave that evidence to you many posts before, but I think this is a lost cause.

11 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

the real irony is that the german government specifically chose the worst possible place to store a majority of their waste , where literally everyone told them is the worst place possible... and now are all like "well this shit is expensive! "

Sure is, if you're doing absolutely everything completely wrong despite warnings of experts etc...

Sadly true, but so far still no suitable places/spots are available - not only for German radioactive waste.