It's a simple concept, but it has nothing to do with the theoretical or practical costs of a nuclear reactor for boiling water to turn a mechanical steam turbine.
It is the first step (without going into nuclear physics) in calculating how much energy is released. You take the enthalpy of the fission reaction, joules per gram input, and that dictates everything after. In fission reactions you get (iirc) giga or megajoules per g instead of kilojoules per g.
Again, this has nearly nothing to do with the actual costs involved with turning energy into electricity. We are how many comments deep and you've failed to explain anything about your original comment?
This sort of bullshitting attitude is why nuclear gets a really bad name. It's supporters do not understand it well enough. And if recent history is any guide, neither do nuclear's practitioners.
We agree that nuclear power is a better power source than fossil fuels on pure technical comparison.
Your opening comment implied that nuclear power would be strictly cheaper because of the higher enthalpy. If all costs were equal, you would be correct. All costs are not equal.
The nontechnical costs are made up FUD. If you cut that out then it is a better solution, and considering the FUD is ridiculous. It's better to properly educate people.
