On 17/01/2020 14:50, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:27:59 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:24:02 +0000, 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.

The Thorium cycle keeps getting mentioned ...

and mentioned and mentioned, a bit like fusion.

No. It's different. Thorium is really no different from uranium its just
a slightly different set of waste products.

Currently uranium is so cheap it's not worth recycling it and it's not
worth using breeders. Or thorium.

If uranium upped in porice thougfh it would be. India is keen on thorium
because it has lots..

Fusion is different. It doesnt actually work - yet.

We know how to build a thorium reactor. We dont know how to buld a
fusion reactor yet that is anywhere near viable

--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler