alt Hacker NewsNuScale infamously failed to get their reactor funded in Utah (UAMPS and the CFPP), it was just too expensive. Costs kept rising, large utilities declined to sign up, and in the end those utilities remaining were going to hit the contractual off ramp so it was just cancelled. I have some links to minutes of municipal utility meetings in Idaho Falls that showed the wheels coming off (even though there was great local support for the effort.)
Their design requires considerably more steel and concrete per MW(e) than a large conventional PWR power plant. You don't do civil construction in a factory, and that's where much of the cost is. Their design appears to have it roots in the (false) idea that what was holding back nuclear was perception of safety, rather than cost.
Replies
Your last point is entirely backwards and missed the scaling concept entirely. I suggest you watch a documentary on the Model T. The point being that these aren't civil projects once it's modular. The prices and material are what's being optimized. To compare to large RPVs and BWRs efficiency is idiotic as that's the only place they beat SMRs and the known downside to SMRs which is the point of scaling it.
It has always been a regulatoryu issue. As given by the fact Valar has a microreactor currently running just to disrpove your thesis.
> Their design appears to have it roots in the (false) idea that what was holding back nuclear was perception of safety, rather than cost.
And why do you think they cost so much? Because people need to believe they are safe from catastrophic failure
Your point is moot, it's the plan with almost all SMRs other than like the Deep Fission type of lazy ideas.
What about Valar Atomics?