[Kon5ole]

>The best part about using nuclear for fuel generation

The main point of this operation is to utilize free surplus energy from solar and wind to store fuel for days where solar and wind can't produce enough. Free-as-in-beer surplus, since the energy would otherwise be wasted or sold at negative prices, like what we have been seeing lately in certain markets.

Nuclear can always produce electricity, so converting to fuel has no benefits it's just a loss compared to using the electricity directly. Also, nuclear electricity is never free but always very expensive because you need a large amount of very highly educated people and expensive infrastructure to deal with it.

>you can build a DAC fuel generator way out in the middle of nowhere.

If things go very badly with a nuclear reactor, there's no such thing as a "middle of nowhere" that's far enough away. The fallout from Chernobyl made certain foods as far away as the arctic circle unsuitable for human consumption.

[lofenfew]

Nuclear can always produce electricity, but spinning plants up and down takes time. More importantly, a nuclear plant has a design lifetime, and most of the cost comes from building the plant in the first place, not from the fuel. It therefore costs a lot of money to let a nuclear plant sit idle. Furthermore, building a small nuclear plant is almost as expensive as building a large one, because of the regulatory hurdles and the effort needed to design it. So not building a nuclear plant as big as you possibly can has a cost as well. The difficulty is that you then need a consumer capable of using all that excess power, which necessitates putting it next to large population centers, who are likely to complain about the risk of nuclear. Being able to build a large reactor out in the middle of nowhere, and be able to rely on always having a consumer for its power even if at a very low price would make it much more viable.

[Kon5ole]

>most of the cost comes from building the plant in the first place, not from the fuel.

I don't think that's correct. The costs of handling spent fuel is ongoing for an unknown amount of time. Eventually the running costs add up.

The main storage site in the UK (which admittedly does more than just store waste) costs around USD 3 billion per year, basically as much as building a new nuclear plant every 5 years.

Then you have unforeseen events that can drastically change the calculations. Like the Asse II mine in Germany where a storage site started leaking and has to be relocated at an estimated cost of at least 3.7 billion euro over the coming decades. After that is completed, the relocated waste will continue to cost money to handle as well.

Such cost are generally NOT included, or has a fraction of the true liability included, in the cost estimates of nuclear power.

When you take such things into account it quickly becomes clear that nuclear is not nearly as cheap as many have been lead to believe, but instead very expensive and very heavily subsidized.

Consider also that even if it were cheap, it is strategically (both in a military sense and for reliability) a bad idea to have few large power plants instead of many smaller ones. The most recent nuclear reactor in the EU has had several emergency stops already and causes severe stress on the grid since it provides such a large percentage of the total power.

Having a geographically diverse set of solar and wind plants combined with local batteries, gas generators and small peak-handling gas plants has to be a better solution than nuclear power. More resilient, cheaper and faster to build, easier to maintain, not to mention a much more predictable total cost.