• SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months 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
      ·
      8 months 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
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months 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.