> >This is then used to drive a turbine that generates electricity. > We could have Nuclear Fusion but we are still using turbine to generate electricity. :P

> >This is then used to drive a turbine that generates electricity. > We could have Nuclear Fusion but we are still using turbine to generate electricity. :P This is actually one of the main points of why the whole talk about "economies of scale" for nuclear just doesn't make much sense. More than 50% of a nuclear plant is essentially the same as any other thermoelectric plant. Despite the many power plants being build we haven't seen a this elusive cost reduction. Construction projects (in contrast to things build in factories) don't lend themselves to economies of scale (in terms of building many). There was an HN submission that analysed the cost of a nuclear plant and showed that there is really not much room for any economies of scale reductions. > >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? > >SMRs could cost more than bigger nuclear plants, he adds, because they don’t have the same economy of scale. Yes that's always the weird part of the discussion. There are reasons why nuclear plants are build large, it's cheaper. > 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?