Nuclear's cost has to do with the bloated construction cost, but that will reduce with modular technologies, it's already happening with the startups around the world. The operational cost is cheap, Koeberg only has to refuel once every 1.5 years.
What you also tend to forget is that the cost of simulation has significantly dropped with the introduction of finite element and discrete element modelling. You can essentially use the same FE model and only correct for the environmental conditions and therefore the planning phase is significantly reduced.
The costs of these power stations went up, because for a while we stopped building them.
Once you get a working modular SMR model, it will essentially be copying and pasting.
Let's not forget that Nasa is going to use Nuclear Power on the Moon, you might get them to sell a Solar Panel.
Wind would be great for the aesthetics up there, but it blows less than on earth.
I doubt they will go for nuclear, I think the pivot will be more towards hydrogen. Land mass is not really an issue, I bet more along the lines of we'll start seeing solar panels that can easily be put on people's roofs for very cheap, and that people will start setting up wind blades on their properties, with the most important thing being grid operators rather with lots of small operators producing power and selling it through that, we'll start seeing less of a monopoly of power generation in places, it will be lots of smaller players combined that will then get bought out and make medium sized players in a region.
Are you willing to take my bet on a Nuclear vs the Sunny Hamsterwheel future?
Here is why I say Nuclear Expansion will continue, because despite the German retardedness post Fukushima, there has been a steady increase in new builds since 2011.
And Nuclear still makes up a higher proportion than the renewables (excluding hydro) combined. Hydro is wonderful, but it is limited by the geography.
China and India is heavily looking into new reactor designs. The initial Capex will be high, it will go over budget, but this is the same argument that you used for Germany. The difference is that once you install Nuclear, you don't need a new coal plant.
The world will need significantly increased energy supply in the next 30 years, especially cleanly-generated electricity. Electricity demand is increasing much more rapidly than overall energy use.
www.world-nuclear.org
In IEO-2016, nuclear power and renewable energy are forecast to be the world's fastest-growing energy sources from 2012 to 2040. Renewables increase 2.6% per year, from 22% to 29% of total. Nuclear increases by 2.3% per year, from 4% of total to 6%, 2.3 PWh to 4.5 PWh. Generation from non-hydro renewables increases by 5.7% each year. Net nuclear capacity increase is all in non-OECD countries (growth in South Korea is offset by decrease in Canada and Europe), and China accounts for 61% of the capacity growth.
You missed the rest of the quote:
Smil explains that modern civilization has evolved as a direct expression of the high power densities of fossil fuel extraction. He argues that our inevitable (and desirable) move to new energy arrangements involving conversions of lower-density renewable energy sources will require our society—currently dominated by megacities and concentrated industrial production—to undergo a profound spatial restructuring of its energy system.
No, I didn't miss it, the issue is that a shift to renewables require inevitable a total reorganization of society on a spatial level, it goes into housing transport etc. I am not as sure as you are that the public is going to accept that price to pay.
Also I am still waiting to see what Renewable plant or Battery is going to supply infrastructure projects n the scale of Lonmin. (wait for the dust wind to blow).
so the more the idiots go for renewables, the more money we make to overcome the inherent inefficient intermittency.
Not trying to get you to keep quiet, I am asking you to research it first. The problem I have is that some ignorant people will come across the forum and be misled by your posts as most people make up their mind pretty quick when given some source and then require way more to change it than it should have. You're a prime example of that
Last point on Renewables, well fortunately the company that I work for also operates in the oil and gas sector
It is rather more along the lines of "I don't like your opinion, therefore I don't like your sources, they are all biased etc etc". Then you go on with cheap insults, which shows me that you don't really have the convictions of your own arguments. I am all tolerant if you disagree with me, but I don't get the impression that it goes the other way around.
