3 ms·
But SMRs address the capex costs by reducing time and resources needed to provision them. The "M" stands for "modular" after all, ie components can be built off
by kitd 11mo ago
But SMRs address the capex costs by reducing time and resources needed to provision them. The "M" stands for "modular" after all, ie components can be built offsite and imported, and capacity can be added incrementally.
Think 'agile', not 'waterfall'.
- pfdietz 11mo agoIf SMRs are cheap enough to act as backup to wind and solar, they are cheap enough to displace wind and solar entirely. And the contrapositive as well: if SMRs are not cheap enough to displace solar and wind, they aren't cheap enough to act as backup. The scenario where it's just a backup never arises in cost minimized solutions.
- kitd 11mo ago> If SMRs are cheap enough to act as backup to wind and solar, they are cheap enough to displace wind and solar entirely. That doesn't follow necessarily. Wind & solar being the most cost effective doesn't mean you remove all backups just because they aren't as cost effective.
- graemep 11mo agoIts the other way around. If you have sufficient nuclear to act as a backup, then you have sufficient that you do not need the wind and solar in addition.
- _aavaa_ 11mo agoThat’s the theory, it has yet to be proven in practice. Even by their own claims, the caped may be smaller but the $/MWh is substantially higher than large plants, and will stay so even after multiple doubling a of production.