I love nuclear technology, but I feel like most nuclear proponents are pretending that the last 5 years haven’t happened.<p>It’s now basically inevitable that anywhere with an OK amount of sun throughout the year will build enough renewables and batteries that any day with an OK amount of sun/wind will let the region run on 100% renewables for 24 hours.<p>These regions are where most people live. I wish those of us up in the far north mattered in the global perspective, but we don’t really. There’s not that many of us.<p>So think about where that leaves room for nuclear. You think these sunny regions will bet on nuclear to cover rare weeks of Dunkelflaute? Or will they just continue to build more renewables and batteries, to the point that they can just cover the rest with some gas power plants (that many industrialised countries have anyway) burning a bit of biogas kept in reserves?<p>Will the north build nuclear power plants to cover winter demand? Maybe. If advanced geothermal doesn’t take off. If nuclear can be built cheaply enough. But it seems more likely that the global network effects around renewables and energy storage solutions will push those solutions to such heights that they will be good enough for the north as well. There’s already thermal storage solutions that can store heat energy for months. Geothermal, tide and wave power have promising developments recently. Reflect Orbital can make big solar plants more productive throughout the year in the north. (Hell, it just struck me that Reflect Orbital could make an agrovoltaic setup more productive throughout the year in the north as well)<p>The potential niche for nuclear is shrinking year by year.