Nuscale SMR Utah Project cancelled

[Brons2]

This happened a few weeks ago, but when I searched the forums I didn't see any other threads on it.

NuScale ends Utah project, in blow to US nuclear power ambitions

NuScale Power said on Wednesday it has agreed with a power group in Utah to terminate the company's small modular reactor project, dealing a blow to U.S. ambitions for a wave of nuclear energy to fight climate change and sending NuScale's shares down 20%.

www.reuters.com

Was wondering what @OVERKILL (and others) take on this might be.

For my part, I wonder how much is spent on these deals that is just pure cavitation. It seems like the costs on anything nuclear always spiral out of control. But how much of this is actual construction cost overruns and how much is just every other business department spinning the register? As far as I know, no concrete was poured for this project. It's just the projections got out of hand. If we just committed to doing these deals regardless of how much it cost and just put our heads down and did it, would it actually cost less than bloviating about it for years on end?

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

This happened a few weeks ago, but when I searched the forums I didn't see any other threads on it.

NuScale ends Utah project, in blow to US nuclear power ambitions

NuScale Power said on Wednesday it has agreed with a power group in Utah to terminate the company's small modular reactor project, dealing a blow to U.S. ambitions for a wave of nuclear energy to fight climate change and sending NuScale's shares down 20%.

www.reuters.com

Was wondering what OVERKILL (and others) take on this might be.

For my part, I wonder how much is spent on these deals that is just pure cavitation. It seems like the costs on anything nuclear always spiral out of control. But how much of this is actual construction cost overruns and how much is just every other business department spinning the register? As far as I know, no concrete was poured for this project. It's just the projections got out of hand. If we just committed to doing these deals regardless of how much it cost and just put our heads down and did it, would it actually cost less than bloviating about it for years on end?

Appears that high interest rates made it cost prohibitive. Too expensive to build and rates would be too high to recoup that expense.

 

[IndyIan]

I guess if your population doesn't really worry about greenhouse gases, then the reasons for building new nuclear aren't worth the trouble or potential trouble getting it all approved and built right with a reasonable budget?
Utah doesn't have a lot of people, or much air quality problems I assume, so just carrying on with whatever they have now probably seems like a pretty safe bet with no huge investments required. Also it seems like they have geothermal available so investing a fraction of the nuclear cost in that with lower risks could be a better plan, or do pumped storage and more wind turbines? They also have a hydrogen generation and storage system in construction, so it that works well, maybe do some more of those?

I guess when I think about it, nuclear works great in somewhere like southern ontario, with expensive real-estate, not much wind, solar, or hydro available, a big dense population, and with almost all the manufacturing know how and suppliers within a 2 hr drive.
Utah has space, wind, and sun, so might as well take advantage of that?

 

[02SE]

I guess if your population doesn't really worry about greenhouse gases, then the reasons for building new nuclear aren't worth the trouble or potential trouble getting it all approved and built right with a reasonable budget?
Utah doesn't have a lot of people, or much air quality problems I assume, so just carrying on with whatever they have now probably seems like a pretty safe bet with no huge investments required. Also it seems like they have geothermal available so investing a fraction of the nuclear cost in that with lower risks could be a better plan, or do pumped storage and more wind turbines? They also have a hydrogen generation and storage system in construction, so it that works well, maybe do some more of those?

I guess when I think about it, nuclear works great in somewhere like southern ontario, with expensive real-estate, not much wind, solar, or hydro available, a big dense population, and with almost all the manufacturing know how and suppliers within a 2 hr drive.
Utah has space, wind, and sun, so might as well take advantage of that?

The 'Wasatch Front' where the majority of the population lives, is in essentially a bowl due to the mountains surrounding the area. As a result they can get terrible air pollution in winter when the weather is calm. The cold air and pollution settle into the valleys, in what is called an 'Inversion', which just gets worse and worse until a storm comes along to blow the polluted air out.

Real Estate along the Wasatch Front is generally not cheap.

Water could be the issue, as it is in most of the West. Utah keeps building more housing and infrastructure to try and meet the demand of an increasing population, and the water situation keeps on becoming a bigger and bigger issue.

 

[OVERKILL]

This happened a few weeks ago, but when I searched the forums I didn't see any other threads on it.

NuScale ends Utah project, in blow to US nuclear power ambitions

NuScale Power said on Wednesday it has agreed with a power group in Utah to terminate the company's small modular reactor project, dealing a blow to U.S. ambitions for a wave of nuclear energy to fight climate change and sending NuScale's shares down 20%.

www.reuters.com

Was wondering what @OVERKILL (and others) take on this might be.

For my part, I wonder how much is spent on these deals that is just pure cavitation. It seems like the costs on anything nuclear always spiral out of control. But how much of this is actual construction cost overruns and how much is just every other business department spinning the register? As far as I know, no concrete was poured for this project. It's just the projections got out of hand. If we just committed to doing these deals regardless of how much it cost and just put our heads down and did it, would it actually cost less than bloviating about it for years on end?

I did mention it in a recent post, but haven't made one about the project specifically. There's more to it than just the cancellation, there have been ongoing issues and concerns with regards to various aspects of the design's viability. The HT system for example, the SG's, a buddy of mine whose an engineer in the chemical industry who deals with similar stuff has point-blank stated that they are an absolute nightmare and can't see how they could be fabricated cost-effectively, and was very concerned about reliability.

Here's the design:

On a conventional PWR, the boilers/SG's are replaceable, and located away from the RPV. Here's an EC6 for example:

The same style of SG/boiler is used in every PWR, for example, here's the AP1000:

we have >60 years of experience with these.

But, assuming for the moment that there were not potential design issues here, how the project was funded was really high risk for a FOAK design. It was very sensitive to price increases, with all these small utilities buying-in, where, with something of this scale, you really need a big utility that understands:
A) The scope of the project
B) The inherent risks of FOAK projects and is willing to absorb unforseen cost increases
C) How to manage nuclear projects

We have that with OPG here in Ontario. It's a public utility that owns 20 reactors and operates 10 of them (Bruce Power operates the other 8 operational ones). So, OPG chose the BWRX design because it was:
- From GE-Hitachi, a company with experience building reactors, so, low risk
- Based on an existing design, the GE BWR, of which there are many generations
- Most likely to be the least problematic SMR design based on the above two points

NuScale should have partnered with somebody like TVA IMHO.

 

[oil pan 4]

Nuclear seems to be the only thing "we can't afford to use to "save the planet" even knowing it produces the most energy for the least CO2 and with the lowest drain on resources.
One thing all the "renewable" and "green" energy sources that we're allowed to use to save the planet have in common is they're all a huge drain on limited resources. Which seems really weird.

 

[mk378]

The plant was actually going to be in Idaho at the Idaho National Lab. This facility has had numerous experimental reactors over the years. They've always been government funded research projects, not facilities built out and expected to produce power on a commercial scale from the get-go. The Utah based financing was a very strange proposal from the beginning.

 

[Brons2]

Nuclear seems to be the only thing "we can't afford to use to "save the planet" even knowing it produces the most energy for the least CO2 and with the lowest drain on resources.
One thing all the "renewable" and "green" energy sources that we're allowed to use to save the planet have in common is they're all a huge drain on limited resources. Which seems really weird.

It's all in the design, planning, permitting, and construction costs.

Once the facility is completed and online, assuming it can achieve good uptime, the production of electricity is cost competitive.

I don't know how you get around this. Treat some startup costs as sunk capital costs, the way many manfacturing businesses treat R&D? Plan for longer reactor lifetimes in the realm of 100-150 years as to give a longer period to amortize the startup cost?

I'm sure in China's case with their nuclear boom the government pays the upfront costs of plant construction at interest rates far below commercial rates.