On one level, your idea is being followed. Rolls-Royce build the UK submarine reactors and are working on developing small modular reactors [1] for civilian use.

A big difference though is that UK (and US) submarine reactors use enriched uranium, SMRs won't.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_SMR

> A big difference though is that UK (and US) submarine reactors use enriched uranium, SMRs won't.

I addressed that difference in my second sentence. The technological competence is to a large degree transferable, the specific designs are not.

And yes, something like the SMR is exactly what I'm talking about, as long as it comes with enough commitment and momentum to actually do the job.

Last time I looked the Royce SMR design could use the same fuel supply chain and processing facilities, which is a huge plus compared to having to set up everything all over again for something like metallic fuel.

I know that at some point in tbe last few years, oil and gas companies invested in uranium mines so they could continue their game of "you base your entire civilization on the stuff that only we can dig out of the ground, so pay up." That was the same time these comments started appearing all over the internet.

Also, I don't want another Chernobyl next to me house, so those reactors had better be properly made, therefore expensive.

Believe it or not, but the matter going into solar panels and batteries also has to be dug out of the ground. The difference is that you need a great deal more of that matter to deliver comparable amounts of power compared to fission.

The difference is that with nonrenewable power, you have to keep digging more stuff out of the ground to get more energy, which allows the mine owners to stay in a position of leverage over the world economy. With renewables, you only have to get more material if you want to expand your production capacity. Additionally, there are many ways they can be constructed out of different materials. This terrifies the oil company executives.

Unlike batteries, solar panels, and windmills, nuclear fuel can be economically recycled. Russia does so already. The only reason it isn't prevalent in the West is because there's so much uranium available that no one bothers. It just gets saved for later.

A 'spent' fuel rod has yielded something like 0.5% of its atomic potential. Complete burns are feasible. So from the fuel rods alone, we can generate 19_500% as much electricity as all nuclear plants since they came into existence have ever generated.

Earth will never run out of fissionables at any rate of use which is reasonable to contemplate. It's just a thing that you need to believe despite that it isn't true. You've chained together a loose collection of political slogans with no grounding in reality or truth.

And how exactly would adding more of the most expensive way to generate power help reduce costs?

See: https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2024/may/24/...

> And how exactly would adding more of the most expensive way to generate power help reduce costs?

Yes, the Australian GenCost report is about generation costs (no mention of transmission or storage in that graphic, for instance).

The https://www.electricitybills.uk breakdown shows that the cost to the consumer consists of far more than just the cost of generating electricity. Intermittents generally connect to the distribution network (given their smaller output). Intermittents necessitate transmission upgrades because wind farms are in a different location to people and require overbuilding of capacity. Intermittents require more balancing because a passing cloud or lull in the wind affects their output. Intermittents require capacity payments for the backup (methane) generators that have to keep on standby.

Plus let us not forget that the intermittent generators get revenue from RO, CfD, and FIT.

It isn't more expensive than what the UK has.

The reason we are in this position is because we looked at building nuclear in the mid-2010s, the cost would have been about half current prices, we didn't build because they were too expensive.

Nothing has been more costly than not investing in capacity.

Empirically it doesn't seem that way given countries with nuclear power have cheaper electricity than those without. It's especially illustrative to compare power costs in France and Germany before and after Germany closed all its nuclear plants.

It's only expensive because we build so few, so have to start the design from scratch each time.

If you look at China they design one nuke station and just copy and paste it to reduce costs, since parts can be mass produced.

There is a bit of overlap but military reactors designed for propulsion have little in common with civilian reactors designed for efficient power production. They are optimized for entirely different priorities.

The Rolls-Royce SMR designs are considerably larger in MW than the subs so I doubt there is anything shared or any efficiencys to come from that sadly.