Whenever we talk about nuclear power on HN, people are split in two groups: those who'd love to see nuclear power succeeding, and those who are against it and who support solar and wind.
I am pro both nuclear and renewables.
Solar and wind have been on an absolute tear lately. At least in the US (where I live) new solar and wind construction has been growing at a breathtaking pace during the last decade.
Take a look at the latest data from the EIA [1]. For the last month available, July 2022, solar and wind generated together 45 Terawatts hour of electricity. Coal generated 86 TWh. But 3 months prior, solar/wind produced 60 TWh, while coal only 55.
To get an appreciation for how much solar and wind have grown over the last 2 decades, here's their July production every 5 years since 2002 (in TWh):
2002: 1
2007: 2
2012: 7
2017: 22
2022: 45
Somewhere up there Moore is smiling.
Guys who are pro-solar and pro-wind: rejoice, you have won. Solar and wind have achieved escape velocity. If they keep it like that, we won't have any problems fully decarbonizing by 2050. We'll actually get there sooner. Without any help from nuclear. We won't even need batteries or hydrogen.
Few people know, but we could keep all the current natural gas plant and still achieve net zero (actually net negative). How is that possible, you ask?
Right now the forests absorb about 13% of the total emissions in the US [2]. Electricity generation contributes by 25% to the total emissions, and natural gas generates less than half of those. So overall, land and forestry absorb more greenhouse gases than those produced by the natural gas power plants.
If we increase solar and power, at some point we will need natural gas to only cover the intermittency. That means, even if we keep all the current natural gas plants, their usage will go down, and their emissions. If we cut all other sources of greenhouse gases (apart from aviation, which depends on energy dense fuels, and contributes quite little to the total emission), we will have no problems to achieve net zero by 2050, and very likely much sooner.
On the nuclear side, things are looking quite good too. Just head to the DoE infographic [3] and see how many cool ideas are in the works. My favorite ones are the fast reactors. But they are just vaporware, you say. In that case, head to the NRC webpage [4], and click on some links over there, and see that all of those ventures (and some more) have already started the licensing process.
Of course, none is as advanced as NuScale. But my point is that NuScale is not our only hope. Lots of other startups are hot on their tails.
My prediction is that 15 years from now, more than 1 of all these startups will have delivered reactors that will be selling electricity at a profit, without subsidies.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/
[2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
[3] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-advanced-reac...
[4] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/licensing...