There is an argument that advanced nuclear is not a credible climate solution because it won't be deployed in time.

Three notes on this...
First, the advanced nuclear industry (and the even more nascent fusion industry) has internalized climate timeframes.

2020s is the decade of demonstration

2030s is the decade of commercialization and price competitiveness

2040s is the decade of deploy deploy deploy
These timeframes are focused on the developed world. The developing world, and China, will need another 1-3 decades of decarbonization to meet 21st century climate goals
Second, for the US and other developed countries, advanced nuclear is needed to replace the inevitable mid-century retirements of the existing conventional fleet. So the 2040s-2060s matter to keep that 20% of US generation decarbonized
Third, the argument, and the industries' timeframes, assume we actually decarbonize in time. If we somehow do, or even more incredulously do it quicker, there is limited loss to developing a new decarbonized technology set that could have price or other benefits. But....
We are not on track to decarbonize the US or world at the rate needed to meet climate mitigation goals.

Nowhere near it.

We have solutions that make it possible, albeit not guaranteed, for the electric sector. Other sectors are much more challenging
So if we are in that BAU scenario, any and all decarbonized solutio s should be pursued.

In advanced nuclear's case, this is especially true because of potential non-electric applications, which are still relatively nascent in R&D yet have substantial promise
The TL;DR:

Lets stop assuming we are on track to meet climate targets.

We are not.

We need to boost advanced nuclear, wind, solar, EVs, and all the other solutions to have a shot
You can follow @gilbeaq.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: