Operating costs are also not the problem for nuclear plants, they are dirt cheap to run relative to their energy production. It's the upfront capital cost of building a large plant that makes them uneconomical currently, which is why smaller-scale designs like this one are appealing.
Edit: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-as... is informative regarding the economics.
Regarding economics, there are lots of reactors in the USA that have their capital cost completely paid off but they're still expensive because of high Operation and Maintenance costs. A lot of this is expensive retrofits and added security costs post 9/11. More of it is that cheap natural gas in deregulated markets has brought electricity prices way down and therefore electricity sales revenue way down. This is why some nuclear plants in the US are shutting down early before their lifetime is up. It's a great tragedy because these plants are massive carbon-free baseload electricity sources. Nukes in the US make 60%+ of the carbon-free energy of the country.
The cost of retrofits is a good point, especially given that our nuclear fleet is getting pretty old. I am also worried about the glut of cheap natural gas and its tendency to stifle other technologies. It's almost unbeatable right now price wise, but I'm a bit concerned about what will happen when that changes. Renewables are great, but base-load power is still a problem.
If you can put the reactor vessel, and associated 'hot' parts into a 40ft Iso container, and ship it cross country for installation/recycling, that might improve on the economics of existing reactors. If you can't do that, I'm not sure how it's going to be cheaper than other options.