☢️it doesn't help the nuclear power 'debate' that the industry can be very "loose with the truth".
eg. 1: @NuScale_Power gives clear impression its product is available now — though it won't be fully licensed before 2024/5, with pilot plant *maybe* 2030.
eg. 1: @NuScale_Power gives clear impression its product is available now — though it won't be fully licensed before 2024/5, with pilot plant *maybe* 2030.
https://twitter.com/NuScale_Power/status/1430201926520606736?s=20
eg. 2: @SmartEnergy1 claims that the nuscale modules in their proposed #CFPP project have flexibility to ramp up/down to complement renewables — yet project investors have been advised recent design choices limit load following capability.
https://twitter.com/SmartEnergy1/status/1428371317322141700?s=20
eg. 3: @SmartEnergy1 claims the LCoE of their #CFPP project is US$58/MWh… neglecting to mention that this is a *target* assuming a $1.4bn grant, PTC subsidy and concessional finance.
real cost will likely be closer to $85/MWh, maybe higher.
real cost will likely be closer to $85/MWh, maybe higher.
https://twitter.com/SmartEnergy1/status/1430908023627653127?s=20
eg. 4: @NuScale_Power claims that its plants can be expanded a module at a time — yet #CFPP investors have been told the 6-unit plant currently being designed cannot be expanded.
https://twitter.com/NuScale_Power/status/1430947154273636352?s=20
lastly, as you read marketing for small modular reactors #SMRs, keep an eye out for tense.
most use present tense.
but when delivery is speculative, and most are precarious projects > 10 years from delivery, the future tense — or really, the subjunctive — is more appropriate.
most use present tense.
but when delivery is speculative, and most are precarious projects > 10 years from delivery, the future tense — or really, the subjunctive — is more appropriate.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
