https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv5QwgQUMGY

For example, building out more AP-1000s is really a no brainer. The first-of-a-kind is always expensive and the AP-1000 was especially so due to many factors. We bore that cost and now we should reap the benefits of Nth of a kind builds.

What needs to improve about nuclear is our ability to deliver it on time and on budget. Safety is already more than adequate.

For example we can create hydrocarbons using solar/wind energy and that is still "renewable" even though hydrocarbons are involved. They are merely the medium of energy storage.

And I know when I do it'll take probably an hour to get all the updates out of its system. Ugh.

https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publication...

It's likely just a phase. Young people have been doing this since time immemorial. I think you are overreacting a tad.

Any large project like a dam or nuclear plant is risky from a financial perspective. You're putting up a lot of capital and probably paying a lot of interest. Larger projects in general tend to run over schedule and over budget too. Back in the day, the US was better at building big things and using public funds for them so it wasn't as risky. Add in the mountain of paper work that the regulators now require for everything nuclear and you have a very high risk project.

It doesn't have to be this way. Other countries have shown that you can consistently build these projects on time and in 4 to 5 years if you have an experienced work force, solid supply chain, and a reasonable regulator. Japan holds the record for a gigawatt scale reactor built in just over 36 months.

In many places the answer has been that the state manages the project since sovereign states cannot go bankrupt. But maybe the answer in the US is that the monstrously large tech companies who need 24/7 (and more recently, clean) energy become the anchor customer.