On 17/01/2020 11:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Pancho
wrote:

On 17/01/2020 10:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It not wuite that they couldnt stop making it, it is just that the
cost of keeping it running is so low.

ALL the cost in nuclear is capital, insurance and maintenance. That
happens whether its running or not. Fuel costs are very low.


For current generation nukes this is due to low demand for uranium. It
wouldn't scale to a world wide energy solution.

Of course if we had fast nukes it would scale.

Then of course if the cost of nukes is all capital rather than fuel
why do people keep pushing fusion as a solution. I can't see why
fusion capital costs would be cheaper than fission and the fuel would
effectively cost the same.

Nominally, because of reduced nuclear waste.

Fast reactors eat transuranics, fusion reactor containers will become
slightly radioactive. So I can't see that as particularly significant.

Bomb proliferation risk I would give you.