Olkiluoto 3 started construction in 2005 and was supposed to be complete by early 2010. It is still incomplete as of this writing [1]. Its cost is also triple t

Olkiluoto 3 started construction in 2005 and was supposed to be complete by early 2010. It is still incomplete as of this writing [1]. Its cost is also triple the original plan. The EPR under construction in France as Flamanville 3 is also grotesquely late and over-budget [2]. Meanwhile renewables started out very expensive per unit of electricity generated, but always had predictable costs and time lines from first concrete pouring to first commercial operation. And they continue to get cheaper to construct. The AP1000 reactor projects in the US had the same late-and-over-budget problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#United_States Chinese budgeting is opaque, but note that AP1000s built in China were also years late [3]. This isn't just a matter of overly-strict regulations specific to rich countries. If California and Germany had embraced new reactors like Georgia, South Carolina, Finland, and France did, it's far from assured that they would have cut fossil electricity faster and cheaper than they did by their actual renewables-heavy paths. Perhaps both locales would have multiple partially-built reactors still generating zero watts. I write this as someone who was initially very bullish about Generation III reactors but became disillusioned as their cost/schedule realities proved so much worse than initial estimates. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanville_3_(France) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanvi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Station