So, it appears the first SMR project in the US was scrapped due to rising costs.
An Aussie SMR would take 10-15 years before even being online and we’d be the guinea pigs.
Perhaps it’s time to pivot to technology already available and that can be implemented in the short term?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Coalition’s energy and climate spokesperson, Ted O’Brien, has cited NuScale’s technology as part of the opposition’s contentious argument that Australia should lift a national ban on nuclear energy and that small modular reactors (SMRs) could be an affordable replacement for its ageing coal-fired power plants.
In an opinion piece in the Australian earlier this year, O’Brien said the company’s integrated reactors, starting with the Idaho plant in 2029, offered “exceptional flexibility” and were an example “of a burgeoning nuclear industry for next-generation technology” in the US.
“If Bowen was to apply the same faulty logic to all forms of zero-emissions technology, he’d be eliminating every single one of them,” he said, arguing wind, solar and hydro energy developers had suffered cost overruns and delays.
Industry experts say SMRs are not commercially available, that nuclear energy is more expensive than alternatives and in a best-case scenario could not play a role in Australia for more than a decade, and probably not before 2040.
It has argued for a slower response to the climate crisis and amplified local concerns about new clean energy and electricity transmission connections.
It had received about US$600m in government funding, but failed after securing subscriptions for only 20% of the required capital from a Utah-based consortium of electricity companies.
The original article contains 632 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 66%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
My summary was better. You skipped that the US project in Idaho has been cancelled 😛.
Why say few words when a greater quantity of artificially remediated soliloquy can further obfuscate the notion wherein the purpose of said trimmed article was lost in transcript?
I knew a fella who had did some serious work around summarization of newspaper articles quite a while ago. In the end he said they came to the conclusion that if you took the first paragraph, and the last paragraph, most of the time you couldn’t do any better. Of course, that research had been based on old school newspaper articles and not newer modes of information publication…
But let’s try it for this article:
The only company to have a small modular nuclear power plant approved in the US – cited by the Australian opposition as evidence of a “burgeoning” global nuclear industry – has cancelled its first project due to rising costs.
“More than two thirds of our coal generators will retire in the next decade due to age. By pushing a unicorn technology the Coalition is posing a threat to the cost and security of Australia’s electricity grid.”
Not too bad. But it doesn’t mention that SMRs would take 10-15 years to come on line. So, I still think my summary is better
Huzzah for the humans! 😛