I’d compare SMRs not with renewables that are not deployable but rather with alternatives that are. No one has yet to crack the grid-scale storage nut one a widely-applicable basis at a cost point below that of nuclear, right?
So then the question becomes, if we really do want to decarbonize the grid, what is the alternative to gas turbines and coal plants?
SMRs may bring scale / learning into the US nuclear industry on a level only seen in France AFAIK. Rather than spending a mint on redesigning every nuke every time it’s built, agree to a common platform and be able to learn accordingly.
To me, SMRs are yet another technology in a portfolio mix that has the potential to get to a future with a much-reduced carbon footprint - be it storage, nuclear, fusion, or whatever.
I’d compare SMRs not with renewables that are not deployable but rather with alternatives that are. No one has yet to crack the grid-scale storage nut one a widely-applicable basis at a cost point below that of nuclear, right?
So then the question becomes, if we really do want to decarbonize the grid, what is the alternative to gas turbines and coal plants?
SMRs may bring scale / learning into the US nuclear industry on a level only seen in France AFAIK. Rather than spending a mint on redesigning every nuke every time it’s built, agree to a common platform and be able to learn accordingly.
To me, SMRs are yet another technology in a portfolio mix that has the potential to get to a future with a much-reduced carbon footprint - be it storage, nuclear, fusion, or whatever.
Thanks for your comments.
First,I never said that SMRs are sustainable- that's what their advocates say.
Second, Uruguay has essentially solved the grid scale storage problem; see my post on sustainable energy.
Third, the alternative to methane, oil and coal for on demand power is green hydrogen. A post on that is in the queue.
Finally I fearr that as long as we have fission power we will have nuclear weapons, which rank second only to climate change as an existential risk.