We could have Nuclear Fusion but we will still using turbine to generate electricity. :P
>these smaller reactors are actually likely to produce more radioactive waste than conventional plants.
>nuclear power expert M.V. Ramana also points out that the cost of renewable energy like wind and solar is already lower than that of nuclear, and continuing to fall rapidly.
Why are we repeating these same questions when we already have an answer? Edit: Solar and Wind aren't constant, and nuclear waste is a solved problem.
>SMRs could cost more than bigger nuclear plants, he adds, because they don’t have the same economy of scale.
I thought the whole point of SMRs were economy of scale?
>Tellingly, some utilities have already backed out of NuScale’s first project over cost concerns.
Anyone could chime in here? Was it because NuScale is too expensive?
I was expecting SMRs, once approved could be built much more quickly. I was thinking in terms of 3 years with perfect project planning. But right now even the earliest ( and likely optimistic ) first SMRs site is 2030. Why does it take so long?