I don’t think the cost of SMRs are settled, but the one thing that I keep hearing is that solar + storage is cheaper than everything. Where are you seeing this because it doesn’t add up. Solar can be cheaper without storage. The battery storage for utility scale systems combined with over building solar to charge the batteries so they are available when the sun doesn’t shine is way more expensive than other sources.

Then you have to look at Lithium mining. Demand is growing and we already will have to produce much more lithium than we do today for the tiny % of EV cars that are produced. Demand is growing and everyone is hoping that new tech will allow us to meet that demand in the coming decades. The problem is that tech is not proven yet. If lithium prices triple due to demand, battery storage is less economical with current tech.

That’s what I hate when people say we shouldn’t invest in the new small modular nuclear reactors, and should rely only on solar/wind + battery storage. We should do both now and decarbonize as much as possible! We have an insane amount of energy production to replace. Let’s attack it from as many angles as we can.

Not really a thing for any modern vehicles. It’s pretty common to get 200-300k miles on a well maintained vehicle.

You’re highlighting my point. 100% isn’t happening in 15 years. Australia isn’t going from 20 to 100% in that timeframe. 25 billion isn’t enough to cover most, if any US states to go renewable. You’re also not factoring in the economics or supply chain of switching. Lithium demand and other rare earth metals are already projected to skyrocket without coming close to getting net zero. Without new extraction technologies, we simply can’t produce enough materials to go 100% renewable in the timeframe you’re suggesting.

LNG/coal plants will be around in 20 years. That much is guaranteed. It’s better to force carbon capture, which will make those plants more expensive to operate, while reducing emissions as the transition happens.

Your link doesn’t really say anything that disagrees with me. We can set all kinds of targets, but that doesn’t mean we will hit them, or that it’ll be cheap to do it. The EU went from 14% renewable in 2012 to 21% in 2021, so 7% in 9 years.

At this pace, in 15 years we will not be anywhere near 100%.

Let’s see the breakdown of how that works. Show me any source that says we can go 100% in 15 years that wouldn’t absolutely wreck the global economy. I am hugely invested in renewables and going net negative carbon, but you’re talking fantasy land. Fossil fuels will be a huge part of the global energy profile for decades simply because there’s not enough money or resources to replace it in 15 years even if it were half the cost it is now. I encourage you to look at the math involved in replacing even half of what we use today.

It’s actually not as terrible an idea as everyone in this thread is making it out to be. Transitioning away from fossil fuels will not be immediate, and these changes will curb the growth emissions of these absolutely necessary functions of society. The secondary benefit of carbon capture, especially if it were enforced to be a requirement for refineries, chemical plants, coal/LNG power plants, is that it would drive the cost of them up, making renewables cheaper by comparison and drive more investment there.