My personal guess is that you are right and that large reactors will not find any more popularity after renewable penetration reaches high levels. But I want to

My personal guess is that you are right and that large reactors will not find any more popularity after renewable penetration reaches high levels. But I want to keep alternative scenarios in mind even if I consider them unlikely. Ten years ago I also thought that fluid hydrocarbon prices (both oil and gas) were going to stay high, if they didn't just keep climbing, but the shale revolution upended that expectation. If any of the miraculous-on-paper new reactor designs being pitched by evangelists ever perform up to expectations in real life that could make nuclear power a low-cost electricity source again. I know that public opinion and environmental activism are often cited as reasons for nuclear power's failure to thrive in the developed world, and there's some truth to that. But I also think that if new reactor designs ever live up to the hype of producing the cheapest electricity around, they will become widespread despite opposition from activists. For a parallel, again look at the shale revolution. Fracking is vocally opposed by environmentalists and celebrities (many ordinary members of the public too), but it still grew rapidly because it actually delivered lower cost energy to buyers. The fact that nuclear keeps failing to deliver low costs/predictable construction schedules is a bigger factor in its weak market prospects than opposition by Greenpeace. Greenpeace opposes many things and usually fails to stop them.