Yes, any technology that would change global energy production needs some infrastructure and production. That's not unique to nuclear fission.
Nuclear has the advantage that it needs for less then any other infrastructure.
> When you account for the infrastructure costs, are any of the new alternatives that much better?
Yes, if you calculate it threw based on first principle it is much better.
It will talk 100 gigafactories and possible more just to get the required store to balance out wind and solar. 2-5 gigafactories sized reactors production plants could power most of the world in the next 30 years.
The scale of difference required in infrastructure, resources and investment is simply on another level.
The problem really is that in the west its practically impossible to do privately, and thus most nuclear startups move to the east and the government has no interest in doing it themselves.
China is already selling 4th gen pebble bed reactors, and after that they will probably commercialize different forms of MSR. It will however take another 10 years until you can buy them.
Nuclear has the advantage that it needs for less then any other infrastructure.
> When you account for the infrastructure costs, are any of the new alternatives that much better?
Yes, if you calculate it threw based on first principle it is much better.
It will talk 100 gigafactories and possible more just to get the required store to balance out wind and solar. 2-5 gigafactories sized reactors production plants could power most of the world in the next 30 years.
The scale of difference required in infrastructure, resources and investment is simply on another level.
The problem really is that in the west its practically impossible to do privately, and thus most nuclear startups move to the east and the government has no interest in doing it themselves.
China is already selling 4th gen pebble bed reactors, and after that they will probably commercialize different forms of MSR. It will however take another 10 years until you can buy them.