You expect a technology to be made to work first, then to be made to work profitably, and only then commodified, miniaturised, etc.
Nuclear works, but no one has made it work profitably. There is no reason to think shrinking it will make more profitable.
Quite the opposite in fact: nuclear has big fixed costs. That's why you usually see multiple reactors build close together on single sites. The more profitable (less loss making really) sites are the biggest ones.
I believe you have not disagreed with me, but you have introduced additional intermediate stages and conditions with which I disagree.
I disagree that it is necessary for technology to be made profitable before becoming commoditised. I would argue that some technologies only become profitable when they are commoditised.
There is no reason to think shrinking it will make more profitable.
I cannot see into the minds of Rolls Royce, but I would hazard that they think it can be done. They suggest that if they can export this technology overseas as well, they can turn a profit on it. While I don't know if they're correct, they clearly believe it's possible.
I think we assume things shrink and commoditise because technology we use daily has often done that (say home computer parts). But other technologies, especially industrial ones, have not.
Cars for instance are bigger and offer more diversity and less commoditisation than ever before.
Similarly, we've had coal power plants for a long long time. And they are larger than ever. Do you know anyone with a mini coal plant? Neither do i.
Nuclear specifically shows no likely hood of shrinking or commoditising in my opinion. Large fixed costs make shrinking hard. A wide diversity of requirements from customers and interconnectedness makes commoditisation hard.
Maybe rolls toyce have solved 2 problems when no one else has solved 1, but I'm skeptical...
He's also failing to identify hidden costs like destroying the global climate that we're most likely going to absorb at the government level despite what greedy lasseiz-fare capitalists want to admit
Betting on a world wide, full funded program to reduce carbon is... Courageous. Betting it will use nuclear and small nuclear and rr's small nuclear and that they will get it ready on schedule and deliver it in time to make any difference? Let me sell you some magic beans I have.
You expect a technology to be made to work first, then to be made to work profitably, and only then commodified, miniaturised, etc.
Nuclear works, but no one has made it work profitably. There is no reason to think shrinking it will make more profitable.
Quite the opposite in fact: nuclear has big fixed costs. That's why you usually see multiple reactors build close together on single sites. The more profitable (less loss making really) sites are the biggest ones.
This is why the first computers were not laptops.