> So nuclear then? Plants take on average 1-year longer than natural gas plants

Water moderated reactors provably cannot work. Breeders do not exist. You don't get to start gaslighting about build times until you prove it's possible to make the fuel rods.

Here's a few hints on how to tell if something works: What was the largest ever deployment of nuclear generation in a single year? For how many years in a row have renewables exceeded this? How many Joules of wholly unsubsidized, non-state-controlled, self-financed, insured nuclear generation have ever been produced? Now how much does unsubsidized solar or wind generation sell for?

> a single nuclear plant produces thousands of hectares worth of solar panels

How long did Inkai block 3 Uranium mine take to develop? What is its area in km^2 including the exclusion zones where the ground is too poisonous to live on or grow anything on? How many GW net of solar could be placed there in Kazakhstan's climate? How many times less energy does the Uranium it outputs produce? Now do a Namibian open cut mine with 0.01% concentration (the Uranium might even break even). How much fossil fuel does it take to mine the fifty billion or so tonnes of ore you'll need?

If you were to expand production significantly that would be a comparatively high concentration mine.

> with a tiny fraction of the resource usage.

A solar panel produces >100GJ per kg of sand with roughly 10x the silver investment of a NPP or ~50g/kW and traces of B and P.

The power density is around 3-6W/kg for high durability panels depending on how they are mounted. A nuclear reactor produces 5-10W/kg.

The solar panel doesn't require indium or chromium or cadmium or all of the exotic materials required for a gas centrifuge. A kg of Uranium ore from Rossing produces about 30-80MJ.

You can't just repeat a lie based on 20 year old data. You're making a claim that renewables (which have now surpassed the world nuclear fleet and are adding 20-30% per year) are insufficient compared to Nuclear. Prove it. Show me where the fuel can possibly come from.

> Even if we used only U-235 and Pu-239 reactors using existing reserves to replace all current and projected global energy needs, we'd have 79 years to find more fuel or build something else.

It's ~79 years at current consumption. Which one of the facts I stated about the available energy are you disputing?

Is there not roughly 8-10 million tonnes of Uranium resource?

Is it not 0.7% fissile?

Does 20-30% not get left in tailings?

Does a current generation reactor not require roughly 3.5 tonnes net of fissile material per GW?

You can't just repeat the lie. Where is the fissile material hiding and how do you start your breeder reactors once you are done without taking a century to build up the U233?

> The first 5 grid-scale reactors being built in the USA are part of a US Department of Energy program looking to create shovel-ready

So you have a program to maybe finish building the test bench in 10 years?

> The technology is fully proven in test reactors

No reactor has ever run start to finish at non-negligible capacity factor with a multi year fuel cycle (whether constant reload or not), created >80TJ/kg of usable steam the whole time and ended with more fuel than it started. It is as proven as a 1000Wh/kg AlS battery that costs a few dollars a kilo or a quad junction 45% efficient paintable PV. 'I kinda tried one of the steps but am ignoring the really hard part of separating fission products or not having it corrode' isn't proven.