This has been an article of religious faith, but I'm not sure it has ever been a technologically defensible opinion. Before the recent order of magnitude drops in battery prices, it may have been an economical argument, but to make that economic argument one would have to ignore the technological tech curve of solar and renewables.
And now that nuclear won't be able to compete on the economics, whereas 10 years ago we though we could still build nuclear for historical prices, people have not updated their reasoning.
Most of the models that included nuclear alongside renewables used far far lower prices for nuclear than we can actually build it for. And even then, nuclear was only selected at ~10% of generation for cost reasons, not tech reasons.
The data doesn't include SMRs and MSRs which could be extremely compelling both from a cost and time to build perspective (or they could be a dead end).
Current gen LWRs are problematic for all sorts of reasons but i wouldn't rule nuclear out of the fight just yet. Especially when you take into account china's track record of delivering nuclear plants at a competitive price.
I'm reminded of Admiral Rickover's thoughts on this:
> An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose. (7) Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.
>On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.
SMRs and MSRs are in the academic stage at the moment. We don't know what they will look like at the end when they are actual products, but there are technical and practical reasons that they haven't been tried before now, so I think it's only prudent to withhold enthusiasm until we have data on their characteristics and potential.
Back in the 80s, we had PV panels in hand, and knowledge of silicon tech curves that could predict the rosy future we live in today. SMRs are a bit more shaky.
Please note that SMR technology has advanced beyond the academic stage. After years of review, NuScale's design has been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Unconstructed plans are the very definition of academic.
NRC approval doesn't say anything about constructability or economics. It doesn't even say much about the operating characteristics, except that the NRC is pretty sure it meets the safety guidelines.
This is why there are these characteristics that Rickover lists, which NuScale will encounter when they finally build, but are not revealed by any planning they have done up until now:
> (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems.
And now that nuclear won't be able to compete on the economics, whereas 10 years ago we though we could still build nuclear for historical prices, people have not updated their reasoning.
Most of the models that included nuclear alongside renewables used far far lower prices for nuclear than we can actually build it for. And even then, nuclear was only selected at ~10% of generation for cost reasons, not tech reasons.