Great idea of you to do sort of a Q&A!
I do really think that nuclear energy is demonized in the last years while, when incorporated correctly, could greatly reduce the footprint of energy on the climate.
I recently also came across the concept of Small Modular Reactors (SMR's). With a modular design, power plants require significantly less construction costs, can be manufactured more efficiently and are scalable to as much energy is needed. And due to their smaller size and design they have less complex systems and are less vulnerable to failures. I see you already mentioned those briefly in the question about the fault lines, but I think that these might have the potential to change the public opinion of nuclear plants being large ticking time bombs to small and efficient power sources.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I do think SMR's will be a real gamechanger. They should help in so many things people are worried about, not only limited to it being cheaper and even safer. When they can be mass-produced, they can get type approved instead of every single design to be approved individually. This might seem as an insignificant point, but it helps a lot with the bureaucracy.
The SMR's can also be used to replace heat producing plants in colder climates. At least in Finland we have power plants designed to produce district heating, but they're mostly fueled by coal, wood or peat. I would be happy to see smaller cities having their own SMR's to produce required heating for the city instead of needing a fossil fuel powered plant to do that.