[epistasis]

Not super viable though, as it's more expensive than renewables and the Western world no longer seems to be able to complete construction within 2x of dollar budget, or 1.5x of schedule. That's a huge problem on a reactor that's supposed to only take $10B and 5-7years.

If we started planning a new nuclear reactor in the US today, by the time it completed, a wind farm with 3+ days of storage attached will be cheaper than that nuclear plant.

Nuclear's days are done. We could have avoided massive amounts of CO2 emissions if we had been able to build them in the 80s (which is a pig-headed and poorly innovating industry's fault just as much as anti-nukers), but we can't go back in time unfortunately.

[astrodust]

The problem with nuclear plants is approval time, and that takes forever and a half because nobody wants one in their backyard. When one does get approved everyone dogpiles on it trying to get concessions.

Nuclear isn't done, it's just having a PR problem.

[epistasis]

That’s simply untrue. Look at VC Summer and Vogtle, both approved, both with willing and suppprtive neighbors. One abandoned at a cost of $7-$10B, the other at 2x budget with more cost overruns likely.

[astrodust]

Well, when they're the subject of a federal racketeering lawsuit, this could very well have been a casino or a stadium.