"Nuclear power is one of the few sources of clean energy that can reliably provide always-on power (unlike solar or wind)"
Ignoring renewable paired with storage when comparing capability with future reactor designs seems dishonest.
Granted, this kind of research may find the kind of quick-on, quick-off generation that's needed when there's a lot of renewable power in the mix.
In general, nuclear lends itself to providing reliable baseload power, whereas storage is most economic when used for peaking or responding to contingencies on the grid.
And you better be able to deliver for under 8 cents/kwh, which is where battery backed renewables are currently at (and that will continue to fall).
Whether the cost can be made sufficiently cheap is another question. Inflation adjusted estimates have (somehow) been climbing since 60s when we actually built nuclear plants.
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/11/nucle...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-environment-i...
The US is building the Yucca facility, but politics have held it up. Generally, the nuclear waste problem is political not technical.
And once nuclear waste becomes more than an academic question, the solution will magically appear.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...
Nuclear advocates hand wave away the waste concerns as "solvable", yet they're never solved. You can't craft policy in such a way, as it's just yet another example of kicking the can to future generations. If you can prove that recycling facilities are in place and ready to accept waste on day 1 of a new facility coming online, that would be cause to advocate for nuclear.
I'd also like to point out that the magnitude of nuclear waste is extremely small, due to the unbelievably energy density of nuclear fuel (2 million times more energy per mass than chemical energy). All the waste ever generated in the US fits in a football field a few stories high. It's incredibly small, albeit dangerous stuff. But that means it's even more reasonable to think we can bury it responsibly, without kicking the can.
There's also been good storage of waste in salt deposits down at WIPP [2]. We know that water moves centimeters in there in hundreds of thousands of years, so the radioisotopes will be well contained outside the biosphere until well after they've decayed to harmlessness.
I'd also plead with you to advocate nuclear energy in addition to renewables and battery storage. We need them all. You obviously are aware that batteries and vast fields of solar and wind and hydro have land/waste/cost/and carbon footprints of their own. I beg you to fairly compare those footprints with the footprints of nuclear energy. Nukes and the intermittent renewables must be partners in our major quest to decarbonize.
Future generations will be much happier with us if we stop emitting carbon than if we safely bury tiny amounts of radioactive waste.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant
My concern with new generators is that it takes at least a decade to construct one. Can someone build one faster, cheaper, and manage the waste stream? I'm all for it.
My point is that it was omitted.
And that it seems dishonest to omit it when making a comparison with renewable against reactor designs yet to be tested while battery prices fall through the floor.
Electrical storage is a possible add-on to any power source, fossil fuels included.
But it's a significant pro if a source that don't require a s storage solution. If economical, large scale storage were closer to being solved, you might be able to take it for granted. But not yet.
The issue of nuclear waste hasn't been solved. Most countries do not have a proper storage site yet, and people understandably don't want to live anywhere near such a site.
I'd prefer solving that problem first, before creating incentives to produce ever more nuclear waste.
FUD is the bigger problem.
> I'd prefer solving that problem first, before creating incentives to produce ever more nuclear waste.
I think that makes about as much sense as insisting on a better storage solution before we waste any more time looking at these solar or wind things.
The disposal of waste associated with renewable energy is a lot easier. It doesn't irradiate anything, it doesn't kill people, even when disposed of improperly. The comparison is just ridiculous.
There's a large amount of ignorant good intentions. Ironically, those that pseudo-scientific bandwagons have probably caused more dangerous storage than they prevented through their loud, blind denouncement of nuclear.
I've seen so many posts, even in this thread, asking for examples of one thing or another--and if there are none, then well, aren't they right? But somehow missing the point that maybe such rhetoric and sophistry is the reason why the examples are lacking. How far would solar or wind have come, if facing the immovable wall of entire populations of ignorance?