[sp4cec0wb0y]

Imagine the powerhouse America would be (pun intended) if we subsidized nuclear energy to become the defacto producer of nuclear power plants world wide. Sometimes it is easier said than done but this really is as easy as said.

[mrks_hy]

You have it backwards. At the current cost curve for renewables and storage, Nuclear will never again be able to compete.

See: the overly optimistic SMR plans being predictably scrapped in many places.

What you do have is ample land to build out solar and export eg. Ammonia (made out of Hydrogen) for "free" energy.

[sp4cec0wb0y]

Correct me if I am wrong but the only reason nuclear is expensive is because of how costly the facilities are to build and maintain. If we were not setback during the anti-nuclear era, we would have gained economies of scale. The reason why solar is so cheap is for the exact same reason is it not? I am not an expert on this topic so take everything I say with a massive grain of salt as I am willing to be wrong on this.

Edit: After further reading it appears that solar will be the defacto affordable option in energy production, even with SMRs and streamlined construction in the picture. Perhaps a mix of renewables, better battery infra, and SMRs for stable sources of power is the future.

[adrianN]

Power plants with high capex like nuclear have a hard time competing in a market where power is essentially free when it’s sunny or windy. Running something like a nuclear power plant only for a few hundred hours a year when it’s neither sunny nor windy is too expensive compared to (hydrogen) gas peakers (or other forms of storage)

[Moldoteck]

SMR will always have worse economics than LMR's if both are streamlined

[Moldoteck]

nuclear can compete if we re-learn to build on time and on budget. Japanese abwr did cost 3bn and done in <4y. China does the same now for cheaper. There's no such thing as free hydrogen, nor it will be

[thinkcontext]

Even in China the case for nuclear isn't overwhelming. They are building a lot of nuclear relative to the rest of the world but its not that much compared to how much wind and solar they are deploying.

[Moldoteck]

Yes. Mostly because of inland ban. Costwise their nuclear is extremely cheap, probably even cheaper than ren, but it's harder to scale (or unwillingness). But per capita they don't even match french deployments during messmer or swedish bwr units during peak

[thinkcontext]

Isn't the inland ban due to water scarcity? I thought the plan was to deploy Gen IV helium cooled reactors which don't need that amount of water.

[Moldoteck]

No. They are afraid to pollute downstream. Nuclear doesn't require that much water. Worstcase you can even deploy dry cooling or wastewater like palo verde

[thinkcontext]

The US gave the nuclear industry a chance for a nuclear renaissance with the subsidies they asked for towards the AP1000. The industry whiffed big time. Looks like nuclear will get another chance with the increased subsidies begun under Biden, the deregulatory approach of Trump and the huge demand spike in electricity. Its an open question on whether they'll be able to deliver.

[pfdietz]

Judged historically, it will be a massive fiasco.

[thinkcontext]

Nuscale certainly hasn't covered themselves in glory.

[pfdietz]

The US is in a bit better position on more nuclear than Europe, because the EPR was an overdesigned mess, while the AP1000 was just badly executed. The AP1000 is actually quite a nice design (it actually has a completed design now). The Chinese are offering a version of it for sale abroad; they tried the EPR too and have done nothing more with it.

If the US is for some reason to do nuclear going forward, just building AP1000s would probably be the least insane way to do it. These SMRs? Maybe investigatory builds but don't count on anything.

[thinkcontext]

I admit I thought the fiascos that the 2 AP1000 projects were would forever kill the design in the US. But it now looks like the AI craze will give it another shot.