[pfdietz]

Nuclear is not on a trajectory to do more than supply a minor amount of world energy. A (say) 10% nuclear, 90% renewable world is not an easier challenge than a 100% renewable world -- the intermittency/seasonality issues aren't eased by having 10% nuclear running as baseload, and keeping it as backup makes its cost per kWh explode.

Nuclear really has to go big (supply most of the world's energy) or go home. But supplying most of the world's energy means burner reactors are inadequate -- there isn't enough cheap uranium. Burner microreactors have even worse neutron economy, so this argument applies even more so to them.

[fssys]

nuclear takes longer to come online though vs renewables can be very quick, so it makes sense to do both as a short-long term strategy

[pfdietz]

As the renewables quickly come online, they push down their experience curves and get cheaper, and the residual demand is increasingly intermittent. Both these considerations mean the economic environment will get worse for nuclear over time. I think this is why there's a rather frantic online push for nuclear: it's now or never for the nuclear bros.