If you build nuclear power-plants as bespoke one time builds, they will never be cost competitive. This is the problem with the approche taken in the Western w

If you build nuclear power-plants as bespoke one time builds, they will never be cost competitive. This is the problem with the approche taken in the Western world for nuclear. A few were built a long time ago, then the industry mostly went in decline and then in the modern day a few individual projects were greenlit. Nuclear was always only cost effective when you build many of them. As in the early expention of US nuclear, or in France. Nuclear in an effect produce to much power, a country like Switzerland (where I am from) would only need to build one every 10-20 years for all the electicity needs and that will never be cost effective. Even worse, each country historically has its own designs that they want to push. Today you could probebly be cost competitve if you let China or South Korea bill some reactors, but that will not happen in the West. France, Britain, US, Russia, Germany all want or wanted their own reactors. The nuclear industry will not be saved by these mega projects, but if its safed at all, it will be newer reactors that can be build smaller. The pure size, complexity and regulatory requirments, plus the interest rate absolutly kill anybody that is trying to build a Gen III reactor. I love nuclear and had envoirmental movement focused on pushed for them we would have had a viable solution for climate change back then. We see this in France, they had green power for almost as long as the debate existed and provided a clear model that somehow nobody else adopted rather talking about wind and solar for decades. Wind and Solar are still very questionable while nuclear was ready 30 years ago. Now it is slowly changing but we lost lots of time.