Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(26,727 posts)
12. It doesn't need to because the "deficit" doesn't exist.
Thu Jun 21, 2012, 02:12 PM
Jun 2012

It's an entirely fictional construct of your imagination.

As has been pointed out to you half a dozen times or more (and you've dodged an equal number of times), the cost of the plant to build turbines is a tiny portion of the cost of providing electrical services to a population... whereas the cost of a reactor is a very high percentage of same.

You persist in acting as if the point of this visualization exercise is limited to a single factory - it isn't -


Again... so what?

Nuclear power isn't limited to a single reactor. Just look at the number that China is building simultaneously and then look at their expectation of ramping that rate up wards in the future. And even that is still irrelevant because you're comparing apples to aardvarks. They're getting ready to propose at least two factories for building SMRs. Are you ok with just looking at the tiny cost for that factory ad then comparing the number of reactors it can turn out per year the way you're playing games with a turbine factory?

Of course not. It would be ridiculous to try... but that hasn't stopped you.

It’s an elitist, war-mongering, closed society of inbred, inwardly-thinking, aggressively xenophobic Kolesar Jun 2012 #1
I cross my fingers for the day people stop using the word nuclear in that manner FogerRox Jun 2012 #2
Stop using the word "nuclear" in what manner? kristopher Jun 2012 #3
I think he means using "nuclear" to refer uniquely to one or two parts of "nuclear". FBaggins Jun 2012 #4
Its nuclear fission I have an issue with. FogerRox Jun 2012 #5
Do you really think the OP lends itself to confusion... kristopher Jun 2012 #13
Not the OP by itself, that why I phrased my comment that way, leaving the OP not mentioned FogerRox Jun 2012 #16
More than one fusion reaction PamW Jun 2012 #17
Quoting myself "the fusion reaction itself creates no neutrons. " in reference to P-B11 fusion FogerRox Jun 2012 #18
More fun, one of the fuel combo results I stated above is inaccurate..... FogerRox Jun 2012 #19
At first glance... PamW Jun 2012 #21
Correct on the DD, 50% of reactions creates a neutron. Excellent. FogerRox Jun 2012 #24
The problem is .... PamW Jun 2012 #25
HE reactors on the Moon FogerRox Jun 2012 #27
Does Todd Riders work on wire gridded cathode Inertial electrostatic confinement FogerRox Jun 2012 #31
B11 + alpha = 14N joshcryer Jun 2012 #26
The neutrons come from the C12 and the Be8, when they split. FogerRox Jun 2012 #28
The alpha neutrons far outweigh the C12 neutrons, though. joshcryer Jun 2012 #29
You've had nearly 2 days to figure it out.... FogerRox Jun 2012 #20
I have better things to do PamW Jun 2012 #22
This message was self-deleted by its author FogerRox Jun 2012 #23
In general, cults like to call other more reputable groups... NNadir Jun 2012 #6
In the time it takes to build one (1) nuclear plant kristopher Jun 2012 #7
So what? FBaggins Jun 2012 #8
The claim that urgency to address climate change justifies building nuclear is false. kristopher Jun 2012 #9
Wrong as usual. FBaggins Jun 2012 #10
There is no way the nuclear plant can make up that 54 reactor year deficit. kristopher Jun 2012 #11
It doesn't need to because the "deficit" doesn't exist. FBaggins Jun 2012 #12
It is a comparison of the opportunity costs of time, Baggins. kristopher Jun 2012 #14
No... it really isn't. FBaggins Jun 2012 #15
You need to learn "kristopher speak" PamW Jun 2012 #30
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Zealots of the Atom: The ...»Reply #12