• SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not surprising. I would imagine the cost per kWh is more for smaller installations. I never understood the push for these aside from a giveaway to nuclear companies.

    There are good guys at INL (although all the guys with MP5s walking around makes for a creepy atmosphere) but there clearly was not much of a future here.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe. I would imagine that having all the portions built at one location and shipped/installed at the site would be quicker and have less variation in final cost.

      The last US nuclear power plant built wound up being 7 years late and a face shattering $17,000,000,000 over budget. Who wants something to take an extra unexpected 7 years to have something built and pay seventeen billion dollars more than you planned on to get it?

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Less land required as well which is also cheaper.

        But ya, being and to produce them in a factory was going to be a big savings. They’d get cheaper as things improved.

    • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      a giveaway to nuclear companies

      That’s how we roll in Canada. The best part is, the guys who own the nuke plants also own the oil pipelines! Even when they lose they win!