The idea is to go to new-generation SMRs, not revive decades-old plants, which is actually impossible.

Aren’t SMRs essentially unproven? I think only Russia and China built some working facilities, and the rest is still under construction.

I mean anything could happen but seems like a long shot

In a nutshell, yes.

The argument is that small-scale nuclear reactors have been built for military and scientific applications so the tech is not especially novel.

What I think is unproven is whether SMRs can be built and run safely while being cost-effective to other forms of power.

I wouldn’t be surprised, for example, if it actually costs less to build and run one full-scale reactor than it does for multiple SMRs of the same output.

That doesn’t mean they won’t have a use.

Yeah, the issue isn't knowing how to build small reactors, it's whether you can do so with enough economy of scale and learning to make it cheaper than conventional nuclear.

And I personally have switched from bull to bear on that. I was rooting for NuScale but they're hitting the same thing as everyone else.

Meanwhile, battery storage has been on an insane cost reduction curve.

This is a key point to many things. Need to identify the difference between technically viable and economically viable.

It is the same argument I make for Starship. Technically, yeah it should work. The economics of of going to Mars, not so sure about that.

They are, but if the country has a law forbidding you from doing anything, things cannot move forward. If they'll not work, of course they won't be built. And large classic reactors are unlikely to be built either, even with this new law.

Gotcha - yea I think it’s a good idea to try out these things. I just hope it doesn’t become a ideological fight to make something work at any cost to fit a certain narrative (same goes for renewables of course)