Reply To: would nuclear energy really be accessible to all?

[Patientman]

benf wrote:

vansig-21 June 2010 12:10 AM

They seem to indoctrinate their people to regard with distaste anything that has a nucleus. Many are even leery of microwaves. I predict a long education for this group.

They largely have had a fear of fission nuclear, which is justified. I may not agree with tactics some environmental groups have used, but overall they have for years been trying to call peoples attention to issues concerning the planet’s health, which I respect.

Education is a huge part of an approach to change perception and I believe that Focus Fusion needs to educate the all sides of the energy issues today. By taking an educational direction, rather than a “we have the answer” approach, you should be able to accomplish more. One thing today that everyone wants to know is cost of energy. Do you have a comparable reference on this web site?
I found this:

Imported Uranium is $46 a pound

The energy required to build nuclear plants, operate them, and mine and process the uranium may be so large as to cause a net energy deficit. Here’s a thorough Energy Analysis of Power Systems including nuclear energy and its competitors. The basic fact about nuclear energy is that the input energy is 4.8 percent of output energy if gaseous diffusion is used to enrich uranium and 1.7 percent if the newer centrifuge technology is used. Another way of looking at the same facts is that if gaseous diffusion is used for enrichment, the energy invested in building the plant is paid back in 5 months, whereas if centrifuges are used the payback time is 4 months.

I was unable to find the cost of a single fuel rod. They only last 18 months. I have some numbers from the Dept of Energy on “overnight” costs for building a fission reactor. The use of number is not my favorite approach to educating and audience, but having a list of comparisons may be useful in the video.