> Nuclear has already lost.
Classic nuclear did lose. Microreactors have a chance unless irrational fear prevents it from entering the game.
And yes, it gives me a great pleasure to see the rapid deployment of wind & solar installations.
Classic nuclear did lose. Microreactors have a chance unless irrational fear prevents it from entering the game.
And yes, it gives me a great pleasure to see the rapid deployment of wind & solar installations.
How many microreactors do we need to replace all the world's final energy consumption (ok around 20% will be replaced by heat pumps net energy gain)? That's 11,000 GW of continuous power. A million 10 MW ones? How many people does that take to build and maintain across the entire value chain? Sounds like hundreds of millions people, easily 10 or maybe 20% of entire world's workforce. Not going to happen.
Solar is cheap because it has hit the economy of scale. Hell, fences made of solar (sometimes, not even connected!) are now more cheaper than those made of wood (at least, in some countries).
While I would not bet my money on the economic feasibility of nuclear microreactors, I would like them to have a fair market trial. If they do succeed, we all win.
For one-offs, the economies of size win, because then the economies of production don't actually get a chance to do their thing. So kick-starting is a problem. However, the problems with the EPR and the AP-1000 hint (do not prove) that we may be hitting size limitations.
The strategy that Rolls-Royce is pursuing seems promising: factory-built microreactors (so economies of production) that you can plop into existing coal-powered plants to upgrade them to nuclear. That way you reduce the issues with the non-factory-built parts.