> No cement or steel process, over the 60+ years nukes have operated, has been switched over to nuke-powered. There is no reason to think any will be.
Isn't this also a barrier to building hydroelectric facilities? They're basically big dams.
Also you believe we'll be able to create massive electrolysis plants to create energy storage for solar and wind? Interesting how you're so confident in massive changes to industrial processes when solar and wind require them, but totally dismissive when other solutions do.
Regardless, metallurgy and cement just need a source of heat and unlike solar and wind which need to convert electricity to heat nuclear plants produce heat directly.
Nukes do not produce output of sufficiently high temperature for cement or steel production.
Hydro-power dams are expensive to build, too, but operating cost is extremely low. New ones will not be competitive with wind & solar, but existing dams will remain useful, where not demolished for ecological or fisheries reasons.
There are no technical impediments to electrolysis. It all just needs to be built out. Efficiency is rising very fast.
Nuclear power does produce enough heat to drive thermochemical water splitting, which can produce hydrogen at better scale than electrolysis (since it avoids issues around electrodes corroding). That hydrogen can in turn be used for metallurgy.
Isn't this also a barrier to building hydroelectric facilities? They're basically big dams.
Also you believe we'll be able to create massive electrolysis plants to create energy storage for solar and wind? Interesting how you're so confident in massive changes to industrial processes when solar and wind require them, but totally dismissive when other solutions do.
Regardless, metallurgy and cement just need a source of heat and unlike solar and wind which need to convert electricity to heat nuclear plants produce heat directly.