[mellavora]

Huh. I'd argue that they should be state-sponsored because that is what the state is for-- investing in long-term infrastructure where the value is widely diffused and thus hard to capture via market mechanisms, i.e. investments which are foundational to the more focused investments which business is so well suited to maximize.

similar to things like interstate highways or internets or public schooling. I'd add "healthcare" to the list, but some countries haven't realized this yet.

[joe_the_user]

Indeed, US large-construction has reached a point of fundamental/terminal corruption through the process of private contracting and especially through the bid-based system.

You can see this with the disastrous failure of public transit construction and planning in the country and if nuclear became an option, it seems very likely that the same corrupt mouths that eat up transit spend would also eat nuclear spending. Something for nuclear proponents to consider.

[belorn]

One of the largest problem is the concept of cost-plus contracts, where the construction doesn't have a fixed cost from the beginning. Government could in theory avoid this problem by doing the design first and then have companies bid on the construction without a cost-plus contract. This assumes that the regulations remain constant from start to finish, as well as the contractual obligations.