It's already non-competitive with solar + battery for any new start builds. I doubt a single commercial installation would exist of these microreactors before battery and solar/battery costs drop another 50-80%.
Even hydro will have issues competing in 20 years.
Batteries, as well, are impacted by the cold in their own ways.
Is a tiny reactor the answer? Probably not. But energy at a constant rate all year round that also self warms? That sounds pretty good to me.
How much faster, is for somebody more knowledgeable than me to answer.
And now politics comes into play: these ships would have to not only have significant permanent armament, but given significant latitude to use lethal force.
And I agree that nuclear is not competitive with solar.
But we haven't really invested in nuclear for more than 4 decades now. Nuclear is just a technology. There is no reason to think nuclear capital costs need to be forever locked at the current levels. China has at least three times lower capital costs for nuclear power plants (judging by the cost of the Karachi units 2-3 at $9.5 BN [1] vs the Vogtle units 3-4 at $36.8 BN [2]).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_Nuclear_Power_Complex
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...
Reactors in towns are dumb. They make sense in remote locations where solar doesn’t work, e.g. West Australian or seabed mining, or on the Moon.
arghandugh•1h ago
greenie_beans•57m ago
arghandugh•49m ago
greenie_beans•48m ago
arghandugh•41m ago
Zip fucking zero percent chance, forever. Move on.
greenie_beans•12m ago