4 ms·
There's more to it than that. The long-term plan for nuclear fission always has been and remains to use breeder reactors after we have ~1000 GW-scale non-breede
by acidburnNSA 5y ago
There's more to it than that. The long-term plan for nuclear fission always has been and remains to use breeder reactors after we have ~1000 GW-scale non-breeder reactors in place. Because they can utilize the majority isotope of uranium (U-238) and Thorium rather than just the small natural amount of fissile U-235, breeders enable us to make 100% of the world's primary energy for about 4 billion years (e.g. roughly until the sun burns out) [1].
[1] https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-longterm-sustainable.html https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-...
The same point was made in the Hot Air book as well [2]
[2] https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_162.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_162.shtml
Since this is roughly the remaining lifetime of the Sun, there's a very strong argument to consider nuclear fission breeder reactors just as renewable as the solar-derived energies (wind, solar, hydro, biofuel)
- pfdietz 5y agoWhich means that nuclear proponents should use the cost of breeder reactors with reprocessing, not burner reactors with a once-through fuel cycle, when calculating the cost of nuclear energy. This will likely increase the cost of energy from nuclear.
- acidburnNSA 5y agoI don't really know about that. After we have 1000 GW scale lwrs the prices of reprocessing might be different than today's prices.
- pfdietz 5y agoAnd when we scale out wind and solar they will be cheaper too. Given the historical experience curves, this argument will favor those, not nuclear.
- KennyBlanken 5y agoIf we forced them to be honest we'd also force them to account for the huge carbon sink the plant represents until it has generated enough power to offset its construction footprint. We need solutions that pay back as fast as possible, not stuff that will go neutral in 20 years.