<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-08/first-us-small-nuclear-project-canceled-after-costs-climb-53" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-08/first-us-...</a><p><a href="https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-power-nuscale-clean-energy-wind-biden-7f3a7fe754b77d8d6cbad8662b87a9c3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-power-nuscale-clean-energ...</a><p>So the state of nuclear is pretty bad in terms of "new nuclear" costs. Lazard LCOE has it basically at 500-600% more expensive than equivalent solar/wind. Yes, baseload, yes all that.<p>I'm probably known as a killjoy on nuclear on here over costs, but I really do think nuclear power is the coolest thing in the world and has a place in our energy future.<p>We just have to figure something out with regards to a competitive design. I personally think we keep retreading solid fuel designs that have hidden structural costs and paranoia-inducing issues with the public. Mostly, the dreaded nuclear waste and its transport and the fear-inducing long half lifes.<p>A LFTR/liquid design can theoretically use virtually all the fuel, so there is no "waste", or at least waste transport. Breeder type reactors IIRC can also take existing long halflife waste and transmute it to usable fuel isotopes again. I know it isn't actually that simple, but it is a lot better.<p>I simply think that is the closed waste cycle that will get a lot of regulatory hurdles over the hump. But we are probably a decade from even a design.<p>Nuscale was the shining star of the current generation of "practical nuclear". This sucks, because at least it kept an iron hot.
Worse than SSBJs and flying cars, the idea of proliferation of nuclear reactors will never make financial or safety sense. The wingnut shooters of transformers would love to cause a radiological incident.