Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
You keep changing your story, mfckrz.

30% load factor is hardly a "intended operational target". That's a highly inefficient and unstable nuclear reactor.
The intended operational target was to demonstrate proof of concept, nothing more. And it did that.

Btw, your EROI/EPR is highly biased and cherry-picked, nuclear EROI goes as low as 10 if you count the cost of nuclear accidents and nuclear wastes. With the latest technologies, wind goes as high as 54 and solar as high as 21.

But it doesn't matter, because the cost of wind has dropped to 2c/KWh, from 7c/KWh in 2009 in the US.

Report Confirms Wind Technology Advancements Continue to Drive Down Wind Energy Prices

It's called technological advancement, mfckrz. The cost of wind mills and solar panels have dropped significantly in the last decade.
These are fantasy figures, given turbine designs are already approaching Betz's law:



Optimistic projections suggest that 4 million 5W 300m tall turbines could supply at least half the world's electricity use. Assuming fairly ideal wind conditions—remember that turbines are idle and thus produce no power 90% of the time. Similar situation with solar panels—they only produce power under fairly ideal lighting conditions.

What's never discussed in these renewable schemes is the tremendous amount of land use that'd be required—land that could've been developed for other purposes (or left alone). And nobody wants to live around gigantic eerie turbines or garish solar farms.

In all, the power density of renewables is 100-1000x less (and thus requires 100-1000x more space) than fossil fuels: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-renewa...ce-fossil.html

I'm not a fan of coal and won't defend it, but this 'solution' is far worse. Nuclear is the only approach that makes sense.