[brohee]

Not cost competitive with solar+batteries in many locales (less so the closer to the poles), and no learning curve, if anything a negative learning curve, nuclear never was more expensive than new nuclear.

And off course societal (and geopolitical) acceptance issues.

[glenstein]

>And off course societal (and geopolitical) acceptance issues.

Right. One thing I've rarely heard emphasized is that, while nuclear power is not at all the same as nuclear weapons, it's still infrastructure that can be repurposed from one to the other. A world where nuclear is the predominant base load power source is a world where nuclear weapons are more accessible due to the proliferation of sibling technologies.

[sh34r]

I don’t believe this is true of modern thorium reactors.

[catlifeonmars]

I’m very optimistic on the future of small modular thorium reactors

[catlifeonmars]

The cost competitiveness and societal issues make sense (though I suspect some of the cost is being externalized in terms of materials extraction and manufacturing).

I don’t understand what you mean by “no learning curve”. Do you mean that the learning curve is particularly steep for plant operators?

[brohee]

Sorry, the manufacturing learning curve. The most widgets you make, the cheapest they get. The effect was absolutely stunning for batteries and solar panels (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/price-of-lithium-ion-batt...).

We make too few nuclear power plants for them to have a noticeable learning curve, and recently each subsequent one ends up more expensive than the latest, notably because of safety regulation. Korea and I think China had the best success in that regard (and France in the 80s) by being able to make real series, but you don't really see those now except maybe China.

More here: https://ourworldindata.org/learning-curve