Nuclear energy debate suffers from the classic problem of impedance mismatch between the supporters and detractors regarding the unit economics at scale.
Current data we have is based on bespoke plants. Utterly maddening overhead. This is the cost disease plaguing any kind of infrastructure/construction/high-unit-cost projects in the "developed world".
If you build one plant per decade, then there's no incentive to streamline, no economies of scale, no overlapping s-curves of improvement, no real industrialization and standardization.
Lack of scale leads to discontinuities, change aversion, lack of innovation, pork and barrel politics, and so on.
See the Boeing 737 MAX fuckup. The regulatory environment created a cost jump so huge, that Boeing risked too much.
I think it's even worse, because so many plants were built in the 70s and 80s, and then there is a large gap. So we don't even have the routine and economies of scale associated with an s-curve anymore. And new plants promise better safety and new features, so we would really start all over again on the s-curve.
This is just another lie. Costs increased very nearly monotonically during the peak of construction in the late 70s and 80s. And during every other country's peak of construction including china right now.
Current data we have is based on bespoke plants. Utterly maddening overhead. This is the cost disease plaguing any kind of infrastructure/construction/high-unit-cost projects in the "developed world".
If you build one plant per decade, then there's no incentive to streamline, no economies of scale, no overlapping s-curves of improvement, no real industrialization and standardization.
Lack of scale leads to discontinuities, change aversion, lack of innovation, pork and barrel politics, and so on.
See the Boeing 737 MAX fuckup. The regulatory environment created a cost jump so huge, that Boeing risked too much.