> Japan is follow allow under international law to build everything required for civil nuclear. I didn't actually know this. That makes it possibly viable to m

> Japan is follow allow under international law to build everything required for civil nuclear. I didn't actually know this. That makes it possibly viable to maybe have some nuclear in the mix. But using it for peaking is still patently absurd, and banking your country's energy security on a bottle neck of one corporation is still an amazing way to make that corporation very rich and everyone else poor. > There are breeder reactors, you don't need to mine or buy much U-235. You can literally easily create a repository with thorium/uranium for the next 100 years. Not to mention the existing fuel. So now we're up to air cooled breeder reactors with 3x surplus capacity. What does that cost, $500/MWh plus massive publicly funded security costs? > Now you are just trolling. But I guess if you don't have actual argument. No. That's what portable energy means. Not a synonym for power lines. High density disconnected sources like H2 and fuels. Current generation batteries only have limited applicability for trucking, flight, and shipping. Upcoming techs don't improve energy density as cost and abundance whilst maintaining enough density for passenger cars are the primary focus. Green fuels solve this but only work with energy that costs a tiny fraction of the cost of nuclear such as wind and solar. Hydrogen has potential here if metal hydrides can be made cheaply and without exotic materials (and synergises well with nuclear because e->H2->e is more efficient than other fuels so you don't need surplus capacity for peaking). You can also move hundreds of gigawatts through a pipeline if needs be, so fuels have relevance in a world where wires are struggling to meet primary energy demand at reasonable cost. > You should really learn about high temperature reactors. TEGs as a first stage are slightly more promising than the same old brayton cycle at ~600 degrees, but they only improve efficiency marginally and you still need either masses of water, a huge massively expensive cooling stack (which still raises average temperature), or more area and cost than a solar farm to dump your 40-60% waste heat. They're also yet to prove cost efficient compared to solar as operating at 1000-2000 degrees is pretty hard on anything. "High temperature" gas based heat exchangers are still less efficient and much more expensive than gas burning turbines which are starting to struggle to be cost competitive with solar. Let it die. Nuclear has always been an option with massive negative tradeoffs in terms of how it shifts balance of power and has only been viable by mandating that the public insure them for free (like footing a trillion dollar bill for cleaning up fukushima which alone would have been enough to turn off every fossil fuel plant in the country any time there was sun or wind). Now we don't even have to consider those factors because they're also economically stupid on every level.