[pfdietz]

China has ditched the AP 1000 technology now. They are building no more of those reactors. So even in China it was a relative failure.

I'll add that there's good reason to think the data from China about nuclear projects being completed on time is invalid. There are cases where at the official start date for construction on some of their plants there was already much visible work that had been completed. Great way to be on schedule, just delay when you say you actually started.

The catastrophe was the financial implosion of Westinghouse and the great damage it did to Toshiba.

[tinco]

I won't dispute that Westinghouse was a failure. They failed at designing a power plant that meets safety criteria for it to be build in the US. Toshiba bet they could do it efficiently, and lost 9 billion on that bet.

None of that has anything to do with Rolls-Royce. There's no reason to assume just because they're trying to solve the same problem that they're going to make the same mistakes and fail as well.

They very well could, and even if they did, your comment would still be useless.

[pfdietz]

What it has to do with Rolls Royce is that Westinghouse claimed they were going to get cost improvements from modular construction. But they utterly failed at that. The takeaway is that claiming you are going to reduce costs, and actually doing so, are very different things. Talk is cheap, especially without a history to show the words can be relied on.