> SMR (also mentioned in the article) doesn't make sense. Nuclear plants are better when they're bigger. I have always found this an odd argument. Granted, the

> SMR (also mentioned in the article) doesn't make sense. Nuclear plants are better when they're bigger. I have always found this an odd argument. Granted, thermodynamically, nuclear plants' efficiency scales with size. But allegedly fuel only makes up 10% of the lifetime cost of a plant. Even more if you think construction costs overrun. So let's say you make a plant that is smaller and requires 50% more fuel, but is also 10% cheaper to build. You're already ahead by 4%. And SMRs at least promise far more than 10% savings. The argument that SMRs could be cheaper due to economies if scale is often dismissed as pie in the sky - and maybe it is - but this is also precisely what brought down the cost of renewables. Germany bought their wind turbines a mere few years ago and paid way more than they would have done today.