Just for clarification, do you mean life cycle analysis by 'energy life cycles'? I thought the main reason we haven't seen a lot of nuclear expansion, other than public pushback, is the rapidly increasing costs with decreasing magnitude of construction; you either need to build a dozen at a time, or none at all. What do you think about nuclear as a stepping stone for a transition to renewables? If France can do it...The real argument against thorium reactors is that once you account for energy life cycles, the efficiency of production is below breakeven.
Looks like I do. Policy is not my native language. In the US, at least, the fact that you can't build a reactor without it being a megaproject means that you never get an accurate cost assessment from the get-go. And, since you're now talking about a megaproject with giant cost-plus contractors and little competitive bidding operating under a dozen different regulatory entities, you're talking about epic graft and corruption. France gets around this through nationalization. Notably, electricity in France is about 30% more expensive than in the United States, which is still the cheapest in Europe. But then, that's what happens when you win The Great Game: you force everyone else to spend more on resources.Just for clarification, do you mean life cycle analysis by 'energy life cycles'?
I thought the main reason we haven't seen a lot of nuclear expansion, other than public pushback, is the rapidly increasing costs with decreasing magnitude of construction; you either need to build a dozen at a time, or none at all.