As my sibling comment also queries, I wonder what you mean by "Building a new nuclear power station is logistically impossible." Can you expand on this further?
Cost overruns, quality control issues, and the inability to manage large, industrial construction projects lasting a decade or more. I'm reminded of a quote I recently read for why the U.S. continues building aircraft carriers even we arguably no longer need them: it's so we can remember how to build them and keep all the supply chains in place. Nuclear power stations represent the limit for what private enterprise is capable of building. I've always we should have adopted the French model where there's a singular design everybody adheres to, it's approved and methodically modified and everybody in the industry knows how to build them. Instead ours are all snowflakes - which increases the complexity that much more.
"Impossible" might be a bit strong of a word, but recent attempts have proven that the initial estimates of time and cost are not very useful for evaluating actual time and cost of completion. And completion is not a guaranteed outcome, as ballooning costs, corruption, or market conditions can cause failure and loss of billions of dollars of labor and materials.
* VC Summer in South Carolina: failed due to corruption and construction/design incompetence
* Vogtle in Georgia: might finish, but every few months gets delayed more for a grab bag list of reasons. See, for example:
Even in France's first generation of building, of the same design, costs rose as they built more. Nuclear just can not seem to find its groove of being reliably constructed or planned.
