The strategic reserve of sunlight and wind isn't susceptible to disruption due to war or economic collapse. It does take some work to collect that energy, i.e. a domestic PV and turbine and battery manufacturing capacity, but these are not consumables like oil, gas, coal or uranium - they're durable goods that should last for years to decades, and which can be recycled.

Manufacturing of PVs and batteries on a large enough scale (and that means much larger, at least volume- and weight-wise, than a fleet of SMRs) needs enormous amounts of minerals that are produced in either unstable or potentially hostile regions. The sheer energy density of uranium cannot really be downplayed here.

PV’s require minimal rare materials because the part that makes power is only ~1/5000th of a meter thick. It works out to around 80 gigawatt hours per cubic meter and most of that material is silicon. By comparison a nuclear powerplant goes through around 240 kg of uranium to generate that much power.

The casing on the other hand can be made from an extremely wide range of materials. And of course long term you can recycle PV panels because they arn’t consuming the material.

> It works out to around 80 gigawatt hours per cubic meter and most of that material is silicon. By comparison a nuclear powerplant goes through around 240 kg of uranium to generate that much power.

Well, one cubic meter of uranium is ~19000 kg, so not sure what your point was.

The point was Silicon isn't rare, it’s 28% of earths crust.

If ~99.5% of the 1 cubic meter is silicon then, the rare bits assuming uranium density are ~95kg which is less than 240kg of uranium.

There is a gorilla in this room: the more we obtain uranium (prospecting, mining, milling...), the more we add to the associated carbon footprint.

Known reserves or uranium may provide for the current reactor fleet at best for the upcoming 200 years.

Therefore a sustained growth of installed nuclear capacity will lead us to exploit mines at always lowering ore grades => more emissions.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222817608_Life_cycl...

And how much raw material needs to be mined and processed to manufacture those rare minerals that generate the power?

Have you accounted for the recycling of uranium? Only a minuscule amount of the energy in fission material goes to generate power and what is left can be recycled over and over again until it is fully "spent".

Exact numbers depend on panel technology, but if you really want to get into the recycling argument stuff that isn’t consumed to generate power is obviously a net win over nuclear fuel. Reprocessing doesn't let you create energy from nothing while solar does let you create energy from material inside the sun.

In term of mining, look at all the material needed to construct and maintain a nuclear powerplant. A significant portion of why nuclear is so expensive is all the stuff needed to build and maintain one.

There is not a single industrial adequate recycling reactor, after 70 years of intensive R&D. Can you name one?