I find the renaissance of nuclear energy a really interesting subject. There are numerous themes that intersect which are likely to alter the outcome.
1) the rise of AI and Datacentres
2) Decarbonisation
3) Huge government subsidies to promote green energy infrastructure
4) rapid evolution of technologies that can increase storage and efficiency
5) Deglobalisation
6) Small modular reactors
7) Public opinion as to the merits and safety of nuclear energy.
Personally, I believe SMRs to be a great solution, but the timeframes required to get them through the planning and legal loopholes could easily be too onerous in Western Democracies.
The additional negative for the Uranium bulls is the rapid increase in efficiency and technological enhancements of battery storage. Not only is Li at a price point where more widespread adoption can occur, the nascent Na battery industry is a potential game changer for smart grids, in combination with wind and ever cheaper solar
It must be too hard to pick winners in this field, but I wouldn’t be sinking too much into Uranium stocks. Copper could be successful but then again- Chinese construction……Li? Well what happens if Na batteries take off ?
Let’s just hope it evolves rapidly, and successfully, so we don’t get more 35 degree days in a QLD winter, and all the other more serious ramifications. But f*ck it was hot today.
C
You've been given free access to this article from The Economist as a gift. You can open the link five times within seven days. After that it will expire.
Clean energy’s next trillion-dollar business
https://econ.st/4g7cfpQ
@Chagsy I wonder whether SMR has missed the boat?
According to the IEA quoted in the Economist article, costs of solar+battery are falling so fast that they are now level with coal-fired power in India, and only a few years off matching US gas. BESS facilities still have to be relatively early on the learning curve because they haven't had a fraction of the investment of EVs, and so many other technologies are potentially applicable (like Na, V, etc) because energy density isn't so important, and they have other advantages.
As the IEA's Fatih Birol says, "batteries are changing the game before our eyes".
I would have thought the obvious place to see SMR's applied was in commercial shipping, given that the technology has been established for over 5 decades in the military context. At sea, solar as the primary source is a non-starter. So the competitors are wind, hydrogen, ammonia, biofuels, synthetic fuels or nuclear. This entire area seems to be less mature. So, for example, although there are some start-ups looking at nuclear for commercial shipping, as far as I and my sources can tell, there isn't a single pilot project as yet, even though global shipping is 2.5%to 3% of global CO2 emissions.
