The First Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Was Just Approved by US Regulators
>This is then used to drive a turbine that generates electricity.<p>We could have Nuclear Fusion but we will still using turbine to generate electricity. :P<p>>these smaller reactors are actually likely to produce more radioactive waste than conventional plants.<p>>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.<p>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.<p>>SMRs could cost more than bigger nuclear plants, he adds, because they don’t have the same economy of scale.<p>I thought the whole point of SMRs were economy of scale?<p>>Tellingly, some utilities have already backed out of NuScale’s first project over cost concerns.<p>Anyone could chime in here? Was it because NuScale is too expensive?<p>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?