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?
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! 😛