You missed my point as shown in the following paragraphs:
"Do you honestly believe any study that computes busbar costs to 5 significant digits for systems that have not yet been constructed and, in some cases, invented?"
Do you understand that when someone attacks a reply based the amount of rounding done, a misspelled word, an uncrossed t, or some other non-important detail in the presentation others generally realize that the attacker is likely dodging facts that they don't like?
Projections of future costs for energy systems without any error bars, allowances for local conditions, variations in project duration, or recognition of the difference between good project management and bad are simply wrong. I am not avoiding them as "facts" I do not like, they are predictions for the future that are merely a matter of opinion.
You also missed my point about working to drive costs down. I am not just investing money; I am refining designs, seeking to improvements in licensing processes, trying to understand cost drivers, and working to apply the economy of unit volume/series production instead of the failed "economy of large unit scale" that has driven nuclear technology decisions in certain companies.
I actually agree with you about why companies might not be interested in investing in nuclear technology based on the choices and price estimates that are being offered, but there are proven ways to use fission that result in completely different economic computations.
You diss my shipboard experience, but fail to understand that fully 6% of the world's daily oil consumption is being consumed in ships that COULD be using fission. Those are essentially baseloaded power plants burning some very expensive fuel. Fission is a proven ship propulsion alternative to fossil fuel combustion; I cannot think of any others that can replace massive quantities of fossil fuel in the task of moving large quantities of freight across the ocean. I also am quite focused on providing power in places where there is no grid, so the power system has be able to do the job that the currently installed diesel generators are doing which is supply whatever power the customers demand when they demand it.
You also claim that there is no economical way to vary the power output from nuclear fission power plants. You have the right to that opinion and may even be correct. However, US Patent number 5309492 explains the operation of a major component of the system working in a power system where the heat source is a high temperature gas reactor with a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity like the German AVR, the Ft. St. Vrain reactor, or the Chinese HTR-10.
Going back to my "bragging"; I apologize for making a statement that might have been confusing or arrogant. I did not claim victory in that discussion; I said that I enjoyed sparring. I did mention that I considered my opponent to be "unarmed", that was a bit of trash talking that should probably have been left out. Others could have judged the contest differently.
BTW - care to share any information about your own "cause" that prevents you from seeing anything positive about nuclear energy? What is it that motivates you to spend so much time in our discussion?
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.