4 ms·

> 50 Billion for fission plants and we are done. I think each one costs around $10 billion; I don't think 5 nuclear power plants will solve climate change.

jaggederest 10y ago
Tokamak style fusion is efficient only at extreme scale. That's not five 10GW nuclear power plants, it's one terawatt scale plant. For reference, the entire Three Gorges Dam and its electrical plant cost ~$30bln and it has a nameplate capacity of 22.5GW. $50B seems low for a terawatt-scale fusion plant. You'd need 3 of those plants to replace all electrical generation on earth, assuming they're at a 95% capacity factor. So call it a trillion dollars, maybe. Then you've got to look at total energy usage, which is order of magnitude larger, at 120TWh, so you'd need 12 to supply every energy need of current civilization. Maybe ~$50 trillion all included. So one year of the entire world's productive output.
- dpc59 10y ago
  You need to account for the fact that energy needs will go up exponentially.
  - h4nkoslo 10y ago
    This has not been historically true. Growth overall has been more or less linear, and in developed economies like the US is essentially flat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File:Bp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/medi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Current_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Cu...
    - kmicklas 10y ago
      It might go up faster if nuclear power made it suddenly very cheap.
- falcolas 10y ago
  You'd need to account for the complete revamp of power distribution which would have to accompany any single source of so much power. Another couple billion (or more).
- nl 10y ago
  Tokamak style fusion is efficient only at extreme scale. That, and it hasn't exactly been proven to work stably yet (Note that the OP said fission, not fusion).
Ericson2314 10y ago
that would be shitty US prices cause we rarely reuse the same design.
- Ericson2314 10y ago
  I'm probably off but check South Korean prices.
- nl 10y ago
  No, it's that they are expensive. Even in China reactors are only 30% cheaper than in the US, and in Korea only 25% less. In Europe they are around 10% more[1]. Note that at these prices it is cheaper to build solar, and in some cases (and places) solar AND pumped hydro power storage. [1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-as...

jaggederest 10y ago

Tokamak style fusion is efficient only at extreme scale. That's not five 10GW nuclear power plants, it's one terawatt scale plant. For reference, the entire Three Gorges Dam and its electrical plant cost ~$30bln and it has a nameplate capacity of 22.5GW. $50B seems low for a terawatt-scale fusion plant. You'd need 3 of those plants to replace all electrical generation on earth, assuming they're at a 95% capacity factor. So call it a trillion dollars, maybe. Then you've got to look at total energy usage, which is order of magnitude larger, at 120TWh, so you'd need 12 to supply every energy need of current civilization. Maybe ~$50 trillion all included. So one year of the entire world's productive output.

dpc59 10y ago
You need to account for the fact that energy needs will go up exponentially.
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  This has not been historically true. Growth overall has been more or less linear, and in developed economies like the US is essentially flat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File:Bp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/medi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Current_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Cu...
  - kmicklas 10y ago
    It might go up faster if nuclear power made it suddenly very cheap.
falcolas 10y ago
You'd need to account for the complete revamp of power distribution which would have to accompany any single source of so much power. Another couple billion (or more).
nl 10y ago
Tokamak style fusion is efficient only at extreme scale. That, and it hasn't exactly been proven to work stably yet (Note that the OP said fission, not fusion).

Ericson2314 10y ago

that would be shitty US prices cause we rarely reuse the same design.

Ericson2314 10y ago
I'm probably off but check South Korean prices.
nl 10y ago
No, it's that they are expensive. Even in China reactors are only 30% cheaper than in the US, and in Korea only 25% less. In Europe they are around 10% more[1]. Note that at these prices it is cheaper to build solar, and in some cases (and places) solar AND pumped hydro power storage. [1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-as...