4 ms·

And why six? Why not build one and then see?

• petre 3y ago
  One still needs to build the structures with the water pools and everything else. If one bothers to buy the land, contract construction workers, lease heavy machinery, they could as well build 6x as big and spread the fixed costs over that. NuScale was designed to work with up to 12 modules. It's too bad it didn't work out commercially. Their other projects will probably get cancelled as well if they face the same price increases.
  • danbruc 3y ago
    But would the cost of that structures not be pretty insignificant compared to the cost of the reactors? Or build the support structure for six reactors but initially only one reactor, sell five more when the first one works. In relative terms it makes no difference whether a cost overrun of 100 percent is for one or six reactors, in absolute term it of course makes a difference and it seems you might have a better chance of not getting your project cancelled if the absolute overrun in smaller. But this might of course, as you mentioned, also be a matter of scale, hard to tell without knowing where exactly the additional costs come from.
    • petre 3y ago
      16.5% for the buildings and roughly 50% for construction services, engineerig services, owner's costs, structures and improvement according to the aricle I linked in my other post. I suspect that specifically those costs are the ones that cause most of the of overruns and delays. Also, the whole process is certified by the NRC and you can't get creative with it. There are 4, 6 and 12 reactor configurations for a given plant. https://www.nuscalepower.com/en/products/voygr-smr-plants https://www.nuscalepower.com/en/products/voygr-smr-plants