ITER is a showcase … for the drawbacks of fusion energy
The energy payback-time for conventional fission nuclear plants is about 4.6 years (40 years live time guaranteed) what does not include the fuel which also uses about 10% of its energy for production and even worse creates a large amount of CO2. Of course nobody discusses the power needed for deconstruction and the secure reprocessing/storage of burnt fuel. Overall I would estimate that 50 to 60% is the net fission energy gained not more.
Let's hope that LENR will be a bit on the shorter side of the payback scale.
But for ITER we can say since fusion day one = 1980 that only energy and money and manpower has been burned down and the payback is only within the companies, that deliver the equipment. (And the famous chief's scientists, .. salaries.)
5,000 people, and approximately 700 students and foreign collaborators carry out research in the facility’s laboratories.
but they are safe .because of environmental monitoring .... and the likelihood that ITER funding will cease before startup and the next earthquake
The energy payback-time for conventional fission nuclear plants is about 4.6 years (40 years live time guaranteed)
Most sources I have seen put the energy payback time for nukes at about a year. That includes the fuel and embodied energy in the construction materials. Here is a detailed industry estimate that works out to be about 0.7 years:
Here's two sources that claim it is 6 years. I doubt it.
The fastest payback time is for gas fired aeroderivative generators.
Is that one year payback on your mind in Georgia?.
I am talking about the energy payback. Not the money payback! One year may seem like a short time given all the embodied energy in a nuke, but remember that a nuke produces a gigawatt and it is turned on all the time; 24/7 for the whole year. It is a baseline generator. A gigawatt is enough to power a large city. Two nukes produce 1/4th of all the electricity in Georgia:
One of the critics who claims the energy payback time is 6 years claims there is a large amount of embodied energy in the uranium oxide fuel, and much of that is from fossil fuel from mining. That can't be right. If that were the case, the uranium oxide would end up costing as much per joule as fossil fuel does. It is far cheaper. You cannot hide such costs.
The embodied energy in ethanol biofuel exceeds the energy content of the ethanol. In other words, the farmers and production factories use more oil energy to produce the ethanol than you get from burning the ethanol. It is an energy sink, not an energy source. That fact cannot be hidden. It shows up in the cost of ethanol, and the fact that ethanol only exists with massive government subsidies. It is government handout to OPEC and gigantic agrobusiness. See Pimentel's book.
I am talking about the energy payback. Not the money payback! One year may seem like a short time given all the embodied energy in a nuke
4.6 years payback was carefully calculated 40 years ago when Switzerland built the first larger plant. This includes all gray energy but not the increasing amount of energy today used for Uranium mining. This amount has to be added all 4 years again. If energy is cheaper like in the states with tax-free polution by cars, then the truth is hidden behind the coming floods...