Reader Response Draft #4

         The article, “NuScale SMR Technology: An Ideal Solution for Repurposing U.S. Coal Plant Infrastructure and Revitalizing Communities” by NuScale Power (2021), introduces their NuScale Small Modular Reactor (SMR) as part of its innovative project to create a “modular light water reactor power plant” to replace coal-powered plants by providing power for generating electricity as well as supplying energy for various applications (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 1). The SMR can produce “77 megawatts of electricity (MWe)” with pressurised water reactor technology that is more secure, compact, and scalable compared to coal-powered plants (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 2). The device uses the concept of “buoyancy-driven natural circulation” to move water throughout the reactor without the need for pumps (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 4). With regards to safety, the device has a “fully passive safety system design” ensuring that reactors will shut down safely and “self-cool, indefinitely” without the assistance of an operator or a computer (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 5). With regards to environmental impact, it outputs a lower amount of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and greenhouse gases than an average coal power plant (NuScale Power, 2021). Lastly, its compact and modular design allows the size of an SMR power plant to be adjusted by changing the amount of SMR modules it uses based on area constraints and energy requirements, limited to 12 modules, as approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (NuScale Power, 2021).

        With the worsening effect of global warming due to the increased amount of pollution, the U.S. should further implement the NuScale SMR because its compact design, enhanced safety features and smaller environmental footprint make it superior to traditional coal power plants in terms of environmental sustainability and compact design.

        The NuScale SMR’s compact design keeps the size of a NuScale power plant small. As an example, a typical nuclear energy facility only uses a small area, “requiring about 1.3 square miles [830 acres] per 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity” (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2015, as cited in NuScale Power, 2021, p. 2). In contrast, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), “a wind farm would need an installed capacity between 1,900 megawatts and 2,800 MW to generate the same amount of electricity in a year as a 1,000-MW nuclear energy facility” (NEI, 2015). Meanwhile, NuScale Power states that its “12-module, 924 MWe NuScale plant has an even smaller protected area of 34 acres” (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 2). This information further illustrates that a typical nuclear power plant uses less space than other renewable energy facilities, and a NuScale power plant uses even less space than that. To summarize, the compact nature of NuScale Power’s SMR design ensures that NuScale power plants only occupy a small area compared to other renewable sources of energy while outputting as much power as a traditional coal power plant.

        Secondly, the gas emissions from NuScale SMR power plants are lower compared to traditional coal power plants. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a typical coal power plant emits approximately 1025 grams per kilowatt hour (g/kWh) of greenhouse gases while a NuScale power plant only emits about 15 g/kWh of greenhouse gases in both of their lifetimes' respectively (IAEA, 2016, p.28, as cited in NuScale Power, 2021). This reduced emission profile further promotes the lower environmental impact of nuclear power plants against traditional coal power plants, which is crucial in our current timeline with the ongoing battle of climate change. This causes the decreased environmental impact portrayed by the NuScale SMR power plants to be viewed as more sustainable when pitted against traditional coal-powered plants.

        However, the economic viability of NuScale SMR power plants may make it harder to implement when compared to other renewable energy facilities such as wind farms and solar farms. For instance, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reported that the projected cost of the 462MW power plant rose from US$5.3 billion to US$9.3 billion (IEEFA, 2023). Meanwhile, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) studied that the average construction costs for wind farms above 200MW were US$1,252/kW (EIA, 2021). This puts the average 462MW wind farm at US$578.4 million, making it about 93.8% more cost-effective than the NuScale SMR power plant, causing the revolutionised technology of the NuScale SMR to be overshadowed by the fact that it is way too expensive to implement in contrast to other sources of energy such as coal plants and wind farms. 

        In conclusion, although the cost-efficiency of the NuScale SMR could be improved to compete with other renewable sources of energy, the innovative technology of the NuScale SMR can prove to become a sustainable source of energy in the U.S. that can replace coal-powered plants while providing the same amount of power. Once the U.S. can fully utilise this technology, expansion into the global market could be a viable option.

 

References

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2016). CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUCLEAR POWER 2016. Scientific, technical publications in the nuclear field | IAEA. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/CCANP16web-86692468.pdf

Mey, A. (2021, July 16). Average U.S. construction costs for solar generation continued to fall in 2019. U.S Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48736

Nuclear Energy Institute. (2015, July 9). Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant's Footprint. https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants

NuScale Power. (2021). NuScale SMR Technology: An Ideal Solution for Repurposing U.S. Coal Plant Infrastructure and Revitalizing Communities. https://www.nuscalepower.com/-/media/nuscale/pdf/publications/nuscale-smr-technology-an-ideal-solution-for-coal-plant-replacement.pdf

Schlissel, D. (2023, January 11). Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale small modular reactor. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor

Critical Reflection on Module and Project Learning

         At the beginning of this module, when I was writing my introductory letter, I mentioned that my goal for doing this module was to gain confidence in expressing myself in both writing and in speech. However, as the first few weeks went by, I started to see more and more weaknesses, such as weak paraphrasing and frequent stuttering, causing me to add more goals to achieve by the end of the module. As I reached the end of this Critical Thinking and Communicating module, the vast number of resources that were given to me and the guidance of Professor Brad allowed me to overcome my weaknesses, such as gaining confidence in self-expression and frequent stuttering, achieving my goals in this module.

        Firstly, in terms of communication, one of the things I learned was how to transform a report into a presentation while reducing the chances of it sounding like a report. This included adding elements such as stories in the beginning, to grab the audience’s attention, or asking the audience rhetorical questions for each section so that they can have an idea of the product. This resulted in the presentation capturing the audience’s attention and encouraging active participation. However, one of the ways I could have done better was to change the tone and pitch during a pitch to emphasise different parts of a presentation. Firstly, expressing excitement or enthusiasm about certain points should involve a slightly higher pitch to show the audience investment and passion relating to the topic. In contrast, using a lower pitch can enhance the sense of seriousness, so using it when delivering certain points can emphasise their importance. In my case, I only ended up talking in a higher pitch as I was really excited about the topic. However, the increased pitch still ended up sounding a bit monotonous even though it did not sound robotic. Thus, I would hope to be able to practice changing my pitch for my future oral presentations.

        For critical thinking, I learned many ways to organise my ideas and create focus statements for technical writing, learning things such as thesis and problem statements with tools such as PEEL and the Pyramid Principle. The thesis and problem statements helped to organise the bombardment of ideas by finding the focus of the ideas and presenting it to the reader while the PEEL format and the Pyramid principle helped to organise the information that was required to explain the point in the aforementioned thesis or problem statement. However, I still think that my skill in researching credible evidence to support my evaluations is still lacking. I hope that with the tools that Professor Brad has given me such as Google Scholar and the SiT Library, I will be able to find and cite evidence credible enough to support my evaluations.

        For the research project, I believe that I have evolved in terms of presentation skills. In the beginning, I used to do oral presentations with a “Let’s just get this over and done with” attitude, not thinking much about how to present effectively. With the resources given in the module for delivering presentations, I managed to learn how to vary my pitch for different sections of my presentation and make my presentation short but informative. In terms of my teammates, Kristine, and Hui Hao, I found out that they have great knowledge of making slides which enhanced our oral presentation. They also have respectable oral skills, which in turn resulted in giving me constructive feedback to improve my oral presentation. The presentation experience really changed my perspective of presentations, especially since I did not think much of them before. I ended up learning how to give a good oral presentation as well as learning the strengths and weaknesses of my groupmates to leverage the things they were good at for the presentation. Overall, I think the presentation and teamwork skills that I have learned during the research project will be useful in my future studies and workplace. 

What should I get for student participation?

         I think that I should get an 'Excellent' grade as I wholeheartedly believe that I complied with most, if not all the requirements needed to be an extraordinary student. For instance, I have never been late to class, always arriving in class before 9 a.m.. Secondly, I actively participate in class and group discussions because not only is it productive towards the assignments but it also helps me to bond with my classmates and groupmates. 

        Additionally, the communication skills that Professor Brad has instilled in me over the course of the module has me eagerly wanting to learn more. Lastly, I have been conscientiously taking feedback from the professor as well as my peers and using it to my full advantage to further improve both my assignments and myself.

        Thus, all of these redeeming qualities of yours truly is a great indicator that I should receive an 'Excellent' grade in terms of student participation.

My main contributions to the research project

Technical Report:

1. Brainstormed possible content together with my groupmates
2. Researched and typed on the general overview of Augmented Reality (AR) with the use of OpenAI.
3. Checking and correcting grammar in the report
4. Studied how to create an AR application and integrated it into the problem solution in collaboration with Hui Hao
5. Summarized the methodology section by explaining the primary and secondary research used.
6. Gave constructive feedback on my teammates sections in order to improve the report.
7. Ideated the letter of  transmittal. 

Oral presentation:

-        Learned and incorporated a pitch format for the oral presentation to reduce the chances of it sounding like a report.

-        Pitched on the design details for the oral presentation.

Reader Response Draft #3

            The article, “NuScale SMR Technology: An Ideal Solution for Repurposing U.S. Coal Plant Infrastructure and Revitalizing Communities.” by NuScale Power (2021), introduces their NuScale Small Modular Reactor (SMR) as part of their innovative project to create a “modular light water reactor power plants” to replace coal-powered plants by providing power for generating electricity and supplying energy for various applications (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 1). The SMR can produce “77 megawatts of electricity (MWe)” with pressurised water reactor technology that is more secure, compact, and scalable (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 2). The device uses the concept of “buoyancy-driven natural circulation” to move water throughout the reactor without the need for pumps (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 4). With regards to safety, the device has a “fully passive safety system design” ensuring that reactors will shut down safely and “self-cool, indefinitely” without the assistance of an operator or a computer (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 5). With regards to environmental impact, it has a lower output of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and greenhouse gases compared to an average coal power plant (NuScale Power, 2021). Lastly, its compact and modular design allows the size of an SMR power plant to be adjusted by changing the amount of SMR modules it uses based on area constraints and energy requirements, limited to 12 modules, as approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (NuScale Power, 2021). The U.S. should further implement the NuScale SMR because its compact design, enhanced safety features and smaller environmental footprint make it more sustainable and outperform traditional coal power plants.

The NuScale SMR’s compact design keeps the size of a NuScale power plant small. As an example, a typical nuclear energy facility only uses a small area, “requiring about 1.3 square miles [830 acres] per 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity” (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2015, as cited in NuScale Power, 2021, p. 2). In contrast, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), “a wind farm would need an installed capacity between 1,900 megawatts and 2,800 MW to generate the same amount of electricity in a year as a 1,000-MW nuclear energy facility” (NEI, 2015). Meanwhile, NuScale Power states that its “12-module, 924 MWe NuScale plant has an even smaller protected area of 34 acres” (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 2). This information further illustrates that a typical nuclear power plant uses less space than other renewable energy facilities, and a NuScale power plant uses even less space than that. To summarize, the compact nature of NuScale Power’s SMR design ensures that NuScale power plants only occupy a small area while being able to output as much power as other renewable sources of energy.

Secondly, the gas emissions from NuScale SMR power plants are lower compared to traditional coal power plants. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a typical coal power plant emits approximately 1025 grams per kWh (g/kWh) of greenhouse gases while a NuScale power plant only emits about 15g/kWh of greenhouse gases in both of their lifetimes' respectively (IAEA, 2016, p.28, as cited in NuScale Power, 2021). This reduced emission profile is vital as it further advertises the lower environmental impact of nuclear power plants against traditional coal power plants which is crucial in our current timeline as we try to battle climate change. Therefore, the decreased environmental impact portrayed by the NuScale SMR power plants will make them more sustainable when pitted against traditional coal-powered plants.

However, the economic viability of NuScale SMR power plants may make it harder to implement when compared to other renewable energy facilities such as wind farms and solar farms. For instance, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reported that the projected cost of the 462MW power plant rose from US$5.3 billion to US$9.3 billion (IEEFA, 2023). Meanwhile, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) studied that the average construction costs for wind farms above 200MW were US$1,252 per kW (EIA, 2021). This puts the average 462MW wind farm at US$578.4 million, making it about 93.8% more cost-effective than the NuScale SMR power plant. Therefore, the revolutionised technology of the NuScale SMR is overshadowed by the fact that it is way too expensive to implement in contrast to other renewable sources of energy such as wind.

In conclusion, the innovative technology of the NuScale SMR can prove it to become a sustainable source of energy that can replace coal-powered plants while providing the same amount of power. However, the cost-efficiency of its upcoming projects needs to be further improved to be able to compete with solar farms and wind farms as cost-efficient, low-emission, renewable sources of energy.

References

1. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2016). Climate change and nuclear power 2016 - IAEA. IAEA. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/CCANP16web-86692468.pdf 

2. Mey, A. (2021, July 16). Average U.S. construction costs for solar generation continued to fall in 2019. EIA. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48736 

3. Nuclear Energy Institute. (2015, July 9). Land needs for wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant’s footprint. NEI. https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants

4. NuScale Power (2021). NuScale Power | Small Modular Reactor (SMR) nuclear technology. NuScale SMR Technology: An Ideal Solution for Repurposing U.S. Coal Plant Infrastructure and Revitalizing Communities. 

https://www.nuscalepower.com/-/media/nuscale/pdf/publications/nuscale-smr-technology-an-ideal-solution-for-coal-plant-replacement.pdf

5. Schlissel, D. (2023, January 11). Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale Small Modular Reactor. IEEFA. https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor 

Summary/Reader Response Draft #2

         The article, “NuScale SMR Technology: An Ideal Solution for Repurposing U.S. Coal Plant Infrastructure and Revitalizing Communities” by NuScale Power (2021), introduces their NuScale Small Modular Reactor (SMR) as part of their innovative project to create a “modular light water reactor power plant” to replace coal-powered plants by providing power for generating electricity and supplying energy for various applications (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 1). The SMR can produce “77 megawatts of electricity (MWe)” with pressurised water reactor technology that is more secure, compact, and scalable (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 2). The device uses the concept of “buoyancy-driven natural circulation” to move water throughout the reactor without the need for pumps (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 4). With regards to safety, the device has a “fully passive safety system design” ensuring that reactors will shut down safely and “self-cool, indefinitely” without the assistance of an operator or a computer (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 5). With regards to environmental impact, it has a lower output of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and greenhouse gases compared to an average coal power plant (NuScale Power, 2021). Lastly, its compact and modular design allows the size of an SMR power plant to be adjusted by changing the amount of SMR modules it uses based on area constraints and energy requirements, limited to 12 modules, as approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (NuScale Power, 2021). The U.S. should further implement the NuScale SMR because its compact design, enhanced safety features and smaller environmental footprint make it superior to traditional coal power plants in terms of sustainability and performance.

The NuScale SMR’s compact design keeps the size of a NuScale power plant small. As an example, a typical nuclear energy facility only uses a small area, “requiring about 1.3 square miles [830 acres] per 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity” (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2015, as cited in NuScale Power, 2021, p. 2). In contrast, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), “a wind farm would need an installed capacity between 1,900 megawatts and 2,800 MW to generate the same amount of electricity in a year as a 1,000-MW nuclear energy facility” (NEI, 2015). Meanwhile, NuScale Power states that its “12-module, 924 MWe NuScale plant has an even smaller protected area of 34 acres” (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 2). This information further illustrates that a typical nuclear power plant uses less space than other renewable energy facilities, and a NuScale power plant uses even less space than that. To summarize, the compact nature of NuScale Power’s SMR design ensures that NuScale power plants only occupy a small area while outputting as much power as other renewable sources of energy.

Secondly, the gas emissions from NuScale SMR power plants are lower compared to traditional coal power plants. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a typical coal power plant emits approximately 1025g/kWh of greenhouse gases while a NuScale power plant only emits about 15g/kWh of greenhouse gases in both of their lifetimes' respectively (IAEA, 2016, p.28, as cited in NuScale Power, 2021). This reduced emission profile further promotes the lower environmental impact of nuclear power plants against traditional coal power plants which is crucial in our current timeline as we battle climate change. Therefore, the decreased environmental impact portrayed by the NuScale SMR power plants will make them more sustainable when pitted against traditional coal-powered plants.

However, the economic viability of NuScale SMR power plants may make it harder to implement when compared to other renewable energy facilities such as wind farms and solar farms. For instance, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reported that the projected cost of the 462MW power plant rose from US$5.3 billion to US$9.3 billion (IEEFA, 2023). Meanwhile, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) studied that the average construction costs for wind farms above 200MW were US$1,252/kW (EIA, 2021). This puts the average 462MW wind farm at US$578.4 million, making it about 93.8% more cost-effective than the NuScale SMR power plant. Therefore, the revolutionised technology of the NuScale SMR is overshadowed by the fact that it is way too expensive to implement in contrast to other renewable sources of energy such as wind.

In conclusion, although the cost-efficiency could be improved to compete with other renewable sources of energy, the innovative technology of the NuScale SMR can prove to become a sustainable source of energy that can replace coal-powered plants while providing the same amount of power. 

References

1. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2016). Climate change and nuclear power 2016 - IAEA. IAEA. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/CCANP16web-86692468.pdf 

2. Mey, A. (2021, July 16). Average U.S. construction costs for solar generation continued to fall in 2019. EIA. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48736 

3. NuScale Power (2021). NuScale Power | Small Modular Reactor (SMR) nuclear technology. NuScale SMR Technology: An Ideal Solution for Repurposing U.S. Coal Plant Infrastructure and Revitalizing Communities. 

https://www.nuscalepower.com/-/media/nuscale/pdf/publications/nuscale-smr-technology-an-ideal-solution-for-coal-plant-replacement.pdf

4. Nuclear Energy Institute. (2015, July 9). Land needs for wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant’s footprint. NEI. https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants 

5. Schlissel, D. (2023, January 11). Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale Small Modular Reactor. IEEFA. https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor 

Summary / Reader Response Draft #1

 The article, “NuScale SMR Technology: An Ideal Solution for Repurposing U.S. Coal Plant Infrastructure and Revitalizing Communities.” by NuScale Power (2021), introduces their NuScale Small Modular Reactor (SMR) as part of their innovative project to create a “modular light water reactor power plants” to replace coal-powered plants by providing power for generating electricity and supplying energy for various applications. (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 1) The SMR can produce “77 megawatts of electricity (MWe)” with pressurised water reactor technology that is more secure, compact, and scalable. (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 2) The device uses the concept of “buoyancy-driven natural circulation” to move water throughout the reactor without the need for pumps. (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 4) With regards to safety, the device has a “fully passive safety system design” ensuring that reactors will shut down safely and “self-cool, indefinitely” without the assistance of an operator or a computer. (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 5) With regards to environmental impact, it has a lower output of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and greenhouse gases compared to an average coal power plant. (NuScale Power, 2021) Lastly, its compact and modular design allows the size of an SMR power plant to be adjusted by changing the amount of SMR modules it uses based on area constraints and energy requirements, limited to 12 modules, as approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). (NuScale Power, 2021) The U.S. should further implement the NuScale SMR because its compact design, enhanced safety features and smaller environmental footprint make it more sustainable and outperform traditional coal power plants.

The NuScale SMR’s compact design keeps the size of a NuScale power plant small. As an example, a typical nuclear energy facility only uses a small area, “requiring about 1.3 square miles [830 acres] per 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity.” (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2015, as cited in NuScale Power, 2021, p. 2) In contrast, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), “a wind farm would need an installed capacity between 1,900 megawatts and 2,800 MW to generate the same amount of electricity in a year as a 1,000-MW nuclear energy facility.” (NEI, 2015) Meanwhile, NuScale Power states that its “12-module, 924 MWe NuScale plant has an even smaller protected area of 34 acres.” (NuScale Power, 2021, p. 2) This information further illustrates that a typical nuclear power plant uses less space than other renewable energy facilities, and a NuScale power plant uses even less space than that. To summarize, the compact nature of NuScale Power’s SMR design ensures that NuScale power plants only occupy a small area while being able to output as much power as other renewable sources of energy.

Secondly, the gas emissions from NuScale SMR power plants are lower compared to traditional coal power plants. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a typical coal power plant emits approximately 1025 g/kWh of greenhouse gases while a NuScale power plant only emits about 15g/kWh of greenhouse gases in both of their lifetimes' respectively. (IAEA, 2016, p.28, as cited in NuScale Power, 2021) This reduced emission profile is vital as it further advertises the lower environmental impact of nuclear power plants against traditional coal power plants which is crucial in our current timeline as we try to battle climate change. Therefore, the decreased environmental impact portrayed by the NuScale SMR power plants will make them more sustainable when pitted against traditional coal-powered plants.

However, the economic viability of NuScale SMR power plants may make it harder to implement when compared to other renewable energy facilities such as wind farms and solar farms. For instance, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reported that the projected cost of the 462MW power plant rose from US$5.3 billion to US$9.3 billion. (IEEFA, 2023) Meanwhile, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) studied that the average construction costs for wind farms above 200MW were US$1,252/kW. (EIA, 2021) This puts the average 462MW wind farm at US$578.4 million, making it about 93.8% more cost-effective than the NuScale SMR power plant. Therefore, the revolutionised technology of the NuScale SMR is overshadowed by the fact that it is way too expensive to implement in contrast to other renewable sources of energy such as wind.

In conclusion, the innovative technology of the NuScale SMR can prove it to become a sustainable source of energy that can replace coal-powered plants while providing the same amount of power. However, the cost-efficiency of its upcoming projects needs to be further improved to be able to compete with solar farms and wind farms as cost-efficient, low-emission, renewable sources of energy.

References

1. NuScale Power (2021). NuScale Power | Small Modular Reactor (SMR) nuclear technology. NuScale SMR Technology: An Ideal Solution for Repurposing U.S. Coal Plant Infrastructure and Revitalizing Communities. 

https://www.nuscalepower.com/-/media/nuscale/pdf/publications/nuscale-smr-technology-an-ideal-solution-for-coal-plant-replacement.pdf

2. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2016). Climate change and nuclear power 2016 - IAEA. IAEA. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/CCANP16web-86692468.pdf 

3. Nuclear Energy Institute. (2015, July 9). Land needs for wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant’s footprint. NEI. https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants 

4. Schlissel, D. (2023, January 11). Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale Small Modular Reactor. IEEFA. https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor 

5. Mey, A. (2021, July 16). Average U.S. construction costs for solar generation continued to fall in 2019. EIA. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48736