“NuScale’s estimated ‘levelized cost of energy’ (LCOE) … jumped by one-half last December (to $89/MWh from $58/WMh). The total cost for the project is estimated at a bit over $9 billion, but $1.4 billion is offset by DOE funding, which could increase in the future.”

More news, more problems regarding the live projects being counted on as the beginning of a new era of nuclear power. Back in the 1950s/1960s, the expectation was that learning-by-doing and scale economies would bring parity with fossil-fuel plants. Today, that same goal seems distant.

NuScale

NuScale Power’s small modular reactor project, designed to provide electricity to Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, a joint action agency serving 50 municipal utilities in Utah, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming, has survived another near-death experience. Facing a vote by the participants in its project for six light-water pressurized reactors, totaling 462-MW on the grounds of the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls.…

“Power DeSmog into 2023,” the headline of a year-end fundraising appeal read. “We’re closing in on 1,000 profiles across our databases, which demands a lot of our team’s time to update and build. Every donation helps!”

The rest of the appeal read:

Every day, our global team of researchers continues to expand and update our Climate Disinformation Database, Koch Network Database, and Agribusiness Database. These critical resources collect information on individuals and organizations responsible for casting doubt on climate science and delaying climate action. VICE describes DeSmog as the “thorn in the side of corporate climate denial” — a badge of honor we’re proud to wear!

Several months ago, I celebrated the DeSmog blitz with a post, “Climate “Disinformation Everywhere! (winning against alarmism)“. I wrote:

At some point, the climate alarmists are going to have to wonder if the universe of “climate denial” and “climate skepticism” is growing so large that the real outliers are themselves.

“DeSmog’s methodology of listing the ‘denier’ qualifications, quotations, and activities–as if the debate was settled toward climate alarmism and forced energy transformation–is utterly unconvincing. Their growing list is impressive and a badge of honor, so let their project continue.”

Stephen Koonin has done much to help “mainstream” the problems with alarmism based on climate modelling–at least for the open-minded and curious. Humility must rule in the face of radical complexity. After all, what can be known in the absence of causal physical equations that are sub-grid scale anyway?

Climate models cannot be expected to “get it right,” if earth modeling is even possible. This is why data-data-data can and should drive the climate sensitivity debate.

Professor Koonin has been profiled relative to Andrew Dessler at MasterResource (here and here).…

“Thank you Doug Sheridan. Thank you Alex Epstein. Thank you Robert Bryce. Thank you David Siegel. And many others…. The great middle is coming your way on the polarized energy/climate issue.”

Doug Sheridan, an energy consultant with EnergyPoint Research in Houston, has tens of thousands of followers on LinkedIn. He is an energy realist and speaks truth to power on energy and climate in a scholarly tone. And his message is resonating well in the mineral energy sector and beyond.

I was struck by his recent post describing the growing recognition of the vital role of mineral energies (vs. dilute, intermittent, infrastructure-heavy, government-dependent wind and solar). Sheridan piggybacks on an article by the U.S. reporter for the Financial Times, Derek Brower.

Sheridan’s post follows:

Derek Brower writes in the FT, pro-oil voices are suddenly bolder, swatting aside environmentalists for having the gall to worry about the climate during a global energy crisis.…