NuScale and its primary partner give up on its first installation.

  • Tldr: renewables are really cheap and utility partners backed out from buying the energy so it didn’t make economic sense.

    I can’t help but feel that it would make more economic sense if we taxed the fuck out of other stable sources of energy that are killing us (coal/gas).

    But it’s Utah: they don’t give a single shit about air quality or global warming.

    • Conservatives have pushed nuclear plenty. Margot Thatcher was one of the first politicians to embrace the science of Global Warming as a way to push nuclear. Opposition to nuclear has usually come from the nuttier corners of the left, like Greenpeace.

      This project simply saw the numbers shift and backers started pulling out. Cost and budget overruns are the norm in the industry, and here we go again.

    • It is basicly what France did. Built a lot of nuclear power plants and due to economies of scale you can built them cheaply. Thats how France got a nearly no fossil fuel electricity grid. However cheap is relativ and a single nuclear power plant currently produces a lot of power, but is expensive. So the idea is to downscale and built a lot of smaller plants, which are cheaper and built even more of them to get economies of scale.

      The idea is not bad, just the fact that nuclear is too expensive.

      • We already tried that. France had 61GW of nuclear. The US has 95GW, but that only makes up about 20% of US electricity. That hasn’t made nuclear any cheaper.

        We might as well keep what we have, but building new will just be expensive and unnecessary.

  • “ With the price of renewables dropping precipitously, however, the project’s economics have worsened. Some of the initial backers started pulling out of the project earlier in the decade, although the numbers continued to fluctuate in the ensuing years.” Ah well. Let’s wait for fusion.