|
|
|
|
|
|
by elproxy
2521 days ago
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
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.