Of course there are batteries! But factoring them in seems to increase the cost significantly. Power lines and cross-continent smart grids are fine, too — but also not free to build and operate.
So a self-contained unit that does not depend on weather, does not need refueling, and includes its own energy accumulator has some appeal.
Take Germany’s recent denuclearization, the efforts are completely political, there was no mention of balance sheet optimizations or concerns. China, India, Russia, among others are all building reactors - either we must agree they are fiscally irrational, or realize that there is an economic case to be made for nuclear power.
Most of the opposition to nuclear power was about a whole lot of things other than politics or economics. Decades of quantifiable failure after failure in the environmental, construction quality, maintenance, radioactive discharge, siting-safety, and waste-handling realms, to name just a few. Everywhere the problems were the same, whether they were covered-up or not. The problems were those of an arrogant energy industry primarily concerned with minimizing expenses. The facts weren't political ... although the many, many cover-ups certainly were.
To overlook all that history and suggest that nuclear is just a political football is absurd. Had it been a quantifiable success, little of the resistance would have evolved. And Karen Silkwood might not have died. There was a lot of money and power at stake, and little tolerance for realistic concerns. The industry earned the disrespect it continues to enjoy.
Remember the widespread promise "Too cheap to meter"? In what year was that promise kept?
2020 Korea, KHNP Shin Hanul 1 APR1400 1400
2020 Russia, Rosenergoatom Leningrad II-2 VVER-1200 1170
2020 Slovakia, SE Mochovce 3 VVER-440 471
2021 Argentina, CNEA Carem25 Carem 29
2021 Belarus, BNPP Ostrovets 2 VVER-1200 1194
2021 China, CNNC Fuqing 6 Hualong One 1150
2021 China, CGN Hongyanhe 5 ACPR-1000 1080
2021 China, CNNC Tianwan 6 ACPR-1000 1118
2021 Finland, TVO Olkiluoto 3 EPR 1720
2021 India, Bhavini Kalpakkam PFBR FBR 500
2021 India, NPCIL Kakrapar 4 PHWR-700 700
2021 Korea, KHNP Shin Hanul 2 APR1400 1400
2021 Pakistan Karachi/KANUPP 2 ACP1000 1100
2021 Slovakia, SE Mochovce 4 VVER-440 471
2021 UAE, ENEC Barakah 2 APR1400 1400
2021 USA, Southern Vogtle 3 AP1000 1250
2022 China, CGN Fangchenggang 3 Hualong One 1180
2022 China, CGN Fangchenggang 4 Hualong One 1180
2022 China, CGN Hongyanhe 6 ACPR-1000 1080
2022 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 7 PHWR-700 700
2022 Pakistan Karachi/KANUPP 3 ACP1000 1100
2022 Russia, Rosenergoatom Kursk II-1 VVER-TOI 1255
2022 UAE, ENEC Barakah 3 APR1400 1400
2022 USA, Southern Vogtle 4 AP1000 1250
2023 Bangladesh Rooppur 1 VVER-1200 1200
2023 China, CNNC Xiapu 1 CFR600 600
2023 France, EDF Flamanville 3 EPR 1750
2023 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 3 VVER-1000 1050
2023 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 4 VVER-1000 1050
2023 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 8 PHWR-700 700
2023 Korea, KHNP Shin Kori 5 APR1400 1400
2023 Russia, Rosenergoatom Kursk II-2 VVER-TOI 1255
2023 Turkey Akkuyu 1 VVER-1200 1200
2023 UAE, ENEC Barakah 4 APR1400 1400
2024 Bangladesh Rooppur 2 VVER-1200 1200
2024 China, Guodian & CNNC Zhangzhou 1 Hualong One 1150
2024 Iran Bushehr 2 VVER-1000 1057
2024 Korea, KHNP Shin Kori 6 APR1400 1400
2024 Turkey Akkuyu 2 VVER-1200 1200
2025 China, CGN Taipingling 1 Hualong One 1150
2025 China, Guodian & CNNC Zhangzhou 2 Hualong One 1150
2025 UK, EDF Hinkley Point C1 EPR 1720
2026 UK, EDF Hinkley Point C2 EPR 1720
[1] except those who do, China leading the pack.
Next look at the time scales for building new nuclear. Then look at the trend lines in the cost of storage, particularly utility scale lithium batteries.
You don't have to be a genius to realize this makes new nuclear a bad bet purely on the finances. Even if you waved a magic wand to eliminate any environmental opposition, the only way new nuclear is getting funded is if government picks up the tab. And that's what we see globally.
One of the reasons NuScale and the linked company above are getting investment traction is exactly because they're attempting to reduce the capital costs and timelines. That's a bet investors are more willing to take, even if the technology is unproven yet.
Why does electricity at night need to cost the same as electricity during the day? Would Western civilization collapse if it cost twice as much? Three times as much?
How much trouble do we need to go to so aluminum smelters can run at 100% capacity at 2 AM?
That's worth paying if it's the only option to address climate change, but if the main argument against nuclear is cost, it's not a fair comparison if renewables externalize cost to the customers.
(Also, aluminum smelters in particular take damage if they shut down more than five hours or so.)