The factors cited were inflation and higher interest rates, which are going to be universally applicable.
Cost overruns at Vogtle and others had inflation as a partial factor but the bigger issues, per the DOE:
"Work began with incomplete designs and managers repeatedly failed to realistically schedule tasks. Experienced workers were in short supply and defective work often had to be redone. Workers quit for other jobs and the COVID-19 pandemic led to high absenteeism."
So a pass on Covid impact but the rest is the result of building a huge bespoke power plant. SMRs change all of that to units of mass production.
I'm sure there's still issues to solve there but if nuclear has a future competing against low cost renewables then that SMRs seem to be the only way forward.
Rosatom is exporting nuclear power plants within budget and (mostly) on time.
It's simply a question of expertise and experience. The US and Europe have ignored nuclear power for so long, that most expertise was lost long ago. And each new nuclear power plant becomes a unique snowflake.
That is mostly because there are no more large scale nuclear investments, lot of knowhow has been lost, everything is custom built now on every level of implementation (which SMRs promise to solve), and because people care about the initial investments, not for the TCO. Oh, and politically motivated NIH red-tape for getting some votes on the cost of whole society.
You didn't make an argument, you merely stated something that the respondent disputes. There is a very stable base load in most countries that can be well provided with nuclear. This is especially the case when there are good interconnections between neighbouring countries.
[1] https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Are-Sm...