Why would gas vendors target their new BFF renewables with propaganda? They could be methane's ticket to profitability for decades to come:

ExxonMobil signs 250MW Texan solar PPA
Shell Solar - Investing in the Future
BP Solar: Global Market Leader in Solar Energy

etc etc etc.

Keep saying "you got nothing" while you can, Joe. NuScale's NPMs are one decade away from relegating solar and wind to permanent exhibits in the Museum of Energy Mistakes:

UAMPS At Vanguard of NuScale's Relentless March Towards Commercialization

Sounds very similar to the recent propaganda from Exxon.

You said:

NuScale's NPMs are one decade away from relegating solar and wind to permanent exhibits in the Museum of Energy Mistakes

From Exxon:

Exxon Mobil to invest up to $100 million over 10 years with DOE on R&D of lower-emissions technologies

Across the Atlantic, U.S. supermajor Exxon believes that the answer to climate change risks is to invest in research and development (R&D) in finding yet-to-be-discovered comprehensive and scalable solutions that would mitigate global warming, rather than putting money into wind and solar farms.

So Exxon announced this week that it would invest US$100 million over ten years to research and develop advanced lower-emissions technologies with the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory and National Energy Technology Laboratory

Both versions of this propaganda try to convince readers  to stall for ten years when current solutions do exist and are working.  

The US electricity market in ten years will be one where coal is almost non-existent.  The market will be divided between NG and zero carbon sources - hydro, wind, solar and the remaining Nuclear.

The NG industry has long had to compete with Coal and nuclear. However, with coal gone and Nuclear viewed as a has-been the NG industry knows that the real future competition are dirt-cheap renewables and storage.

States like CA, NV and NY which have are on the brink of eliminating coal have already started to replace NG based electricity with renewables.

If Nu-Scale is to be successful they will have to compete with NG based generaton.  If there is some sort of carbon price then they stand a chance.

Note- remaining nuclear will be 10 years older by 2030. Perhaps they can also gain some sales by replacing some of the lost generation as old nuclear retires. Decent-sized market.

As for competing with dirt cheap solar/wind/storage. Doubt it.

To add on to the 'delay 10 years' point you make, Joe, I'd point out that the notion that in 10 years small modular reactors will change the game (which they very well could, and I'd be quite happy to see!) doesn't create a solution for what we should do today or during that 10 year period. If last fall's report from the IPCCC is to be believed, waiting for this silver bullet a decade now will still cause too much damage to the climate in the meantime-- so embracing solutions that are making important differences now is still critical

"If last fall's report from the IPCCC is to be believed, waiting for this silver bullet a decade now will still cause too much damage to the climate in the meantime-- so embracing solutions that are making important differences now is still critical"

Matt, the average lifetime of a natural gas plant in the US is 43 years. Because banks would never offer financing on a $1 billion gas plant if it's going to be shut down ten years later, nor would shareholders approve such a loan, it's obvious both banks and utilities are in gas for the long haul.

Joe's belief gas companies will take out bad loans to help the environment is incomprehensible, and a quintessential example of the blind faith driving pro-renewables evangelism. Exxon-Mobil, Shell, and Chevron count on ongoing, irrational support for renewables to keep gas profitable indefinitely and maintain climate "targets" forever out of reach.