[elproxy]

I think the key technology when looking at extending supplies is fissile breeding, so you probably want to look at fast neutron reactors, and since you quote the french wikipedia, I will follow suit: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix If you are curious about these subjects and a french speaker, there's a series on energy with many aspects of Nuclear on the french speaking youtube channel "Le Réveilleur". Jean-Marc Jancovici has also written and talked a fair bit about Nuclear in the context of energy and climate.

[AlphaGeekZulu]

Thank you for the link, interesting read! The article is available in english as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix

My executive summary: construction began in 1976 and the plant was decomissioned in 1997. It never operated satisfactorily and had a couple of incidents. It produced electricity in the value of about 1,85 billion francs, at the expense of about 60 billion francs until today (producing even more costs until its ultimate deconstruction until 2027), leaving 650 fuel rods in temporary storage pools. It was the last reactor of this type (fissile breeding?) that was built in Europe.

I do not believe, this is the type of "reactor with advanced technology, that can actually reprocess tons of old fuel", that user "bifrost" mentioned above?

[elproxy]

ITER will most likely be a big net negative, and the cost is much higher. Should we cancel it without trying then? If you consider Superphenix as a prototype shut down prematurely for political and ideological reasons, the numbers aren’t that bad. Pretty sad that this wasn’t the last one built in Europe, long term thinking has gone out the window decades ago...

[AlphaGeekZulu]

We are loosing the leitmotif in this subthread and I would like to bring us back on track. The logical structure of this discourse is:

1. "[...]We should have nuclear going at 120% of demand and use the exess power to support electricity based carbon capture devices."

2. "Can we mine enough uranium to produce this much electricity?"

3. "Yes. Reactor technologies have advanced, we just haven't built enough. We can actually reprocess the tons of old fuel we have for trillions of MWh."

4. "[...]Can you give any link to anything that is actually implemented?[...]"

In 3., user "bifrost" makes the factual claim, that there was an existing technology that could reprocess old fuel and produce trillions (sic!) of MWh, if built in sufficient quantity.

In the remainder of the thread, me and others ask user "bifrost" to provide some source for the claim, but user "bifrost" was unfortunately not elaborating. Other users stepped in and linked to

- the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at La Hague, which is, well, not a reactor

- the fast breeder Superphoenix, which was decommissioned (and with it the technology) 22 years ago

- an article of the Heritage Foundation, which refers to French nuclear fuel reprocessing (with false claims)

- and the ITER-technology, which is completely experimental and will use real fuel for experimental purposes not before 2035, being away from commercial usability at least 20 years from now. It will also not burn old fuel.

So none of this (well appreciated) contributions matches the description of the claim in 3.

I will admit at this point, that I am not interested in a public discourse of my opinions about the pros and cons of nuclear energy, as I have made up my mind and don't feel the wish to proselytize anyone.

I simply would like to have user "bifrost" substantiate his claim. Because, if true, this could potentially change my mind about nuclear energy. And because, if false, it would confirm my suspicion about fake exertion of influence by pro-nuclear lobbyists.