> Not sure where this number comes from. It's 1200 GW. You keep saying that nameplate capacity isn't capacity. Net generation is 4000TWh/yr. There are 8760 hou

> Not sure where this number comes from. It's 1200 GW. You keep saying that nameplate capacity isn't capacity. Net generation is 4000TWh/yr. There are 8760 hours in a year. Much of that 1200GW is not able to be active simultaneously (the whole capacity factor concept you keep complaining about). > TWO DECADES AGO a research report from MIT concluded that, at that time, we had more than enough uranium ore to power a thousand reactors for 50 years. How big were the reactors? An AP-1000 takes 100t of enriched uranium, and gets about 1000-1300GJ/kg of enriched fuel. Also that uranium has been powering 400 reactors for 20 years. 10% of it is gone now. > Since then we have gotten very good at extracting uranium from other sources as well as recycling. I don't think we have a problem. U238 isn't U235, and U238 doesn't fission without neutrons. Reprocessing only gets you an extra 25% from the Pu and closed fuel cycle generation has never even been demonstrated as a prototype. Claiming more than 1TW of nuclear generation is scifi. Current known and inferred reserves are 8 billion kg of natural uranium at 0.7% U235. Each kg of 4% uranium gets you 500-1300GJ (much less if not used at constant power) and tails are about 0.2%. You do the math.