True. The problem is that instant action is needed.
In that perspective, Germany's decision to shutdown operational nuclear plants in favour of ramping up brown coal energy seems especially poor. But had it's politics been different and the existing reactors kept open at expense of ditching coal, that still would not have helped advance nuclear innovation that might possibly have led to cheaper or safer nuclear power. As it stands, nuclear is too expensive to compete with renewables.
And I don't think the young climate activists would argue for leniency, building and managing nuclear plants with the same sloppiness as their coal competitors.
They can pack a nuclear power plant on a boat/submarine. It means, they can build a system which is compact and reproducible.
If the authorities would be ready to allow the use of such systems as stationary deployment and provide financial incentives to get them online fast for "base load", I expect Rolls Royce and cie. to quickly deliver.
Even a reactor designed to power an aircraft carrier wouldn't do much more than power a few suburbs. We would need many, many boat powerplants to replace a single coal fired power station which looks impractical against batteries and wind/solar both on cost and deployment speed.
I'm not here to try and float the nuclear boat, 'that ship has sailed' -but I think your economics are true now, but somewhat shallow.
There have been decades lost getting PV and wind viable to power a few suburbs and the LCOE of SMR would have been just fine if the industry had been allowed to achieve the same economies of scale of production. Now? It's two to three or more times expensive than solar/wind. (CSIRO)
Instead we've got billions of overspend on giant Reactor complexes like Hinckley. It can't compete. But undeniable huge sums of money have been flung at nuclear.
Both nuke, and solar and wind and batteries are dwarfed by the gross irresponsible subsidies which underpin coal, oil and gas. They launched the 20th century. They leave a trail of tears and ash behind, which will take centuries to remediate. Massive socialised losses as an externality.
I like wind, and PV and batteries. We're going to do fine.
I am not a grid expert, though I am fairly well versed in EVs/solar/battery storage.
I am curious if battery storage can be done on-site at solar/wind facilities rather than distributed locally in neighborhood grids. I ask, because in NY we are seeing huge NIMBY issues with installing battery storage in residential areas. A mix of realistic concerns (fire safety) and general FUD/NIMBYism for sure.
The facilities aren't even that big, which is why I'm curious if they could just be built out at the generation site and fight the NIMBY env. review paperwork game once.
For whatever reason, in the US they have been trying to do storage on the other end.
For example, on the roof top of a rent stabilized mid-rise rental building in Brooklyn. So of course it turns into a complete debacle of renters alleging landlord greed / callous indifferent / etc. And it forces politicians to take the side of the "little guy" against the big bad landlord and his green energy, haha.
Another example out in the exurbs, they were going to put a large battery storage install basically next to a highway off-ramp where they currently store plows/salt/trucks/etc. Unfortunately again the locals have raised a fit. Despite it being penned in on all sides by roads / state property, they are raising fear of fire hazards and environmental contamination.
Ideally we move to LFP batteries for storage and no longer need to hear all this.
Which has a huge effect on the speed of innovation, the cycle time is such that making a better nuclear system takes much longer than solar. So comparing costs gives one result, comparing cost curves quite another
