We only have one real data point as far as actual newly constructed plants in the US go, but that data point agitates against your position. At Vogtie, the gove

We only have one real data point as far as actual newly constructed plants in the US go, but that data point agitates against your position. At Vogtie, the government made a rule that effectively forbids consumers in the Vogtie service region from using anything but Vogtie. So no switching to using some wind farm that someone might slap up down the road from you. Material point is that regulations generally favor these sorts of plants where consumers are concerned because the government needs the plant. (Or, at minimum, has decided they want the plant.) Not that any of it matters. Obviously, Vogtie still is a financial mess. I suppose it's probably beyond "mess". Once something's more than 200% or 20 billion over budget it's OK to go ahead and call it a financial disaster. I'm only pointing out that regulations work both ways, and when the government is trying to get a power plant built the regulations will generally work in favor of the generating entity. The essential issue is that nuclear plants cost money even if there are no regulations at all. The required metallurgy, for instance, just costs a baseline amount of money, and there's no way to cut it down. I doubt anyone could get a nuclear plant built for less than $1 Billion even in the absence of regulations. And that's for the designs we know and understand. There will definitely be cost overruns for the newer designs that we haven't worked with in production. Investors have to be able to recoup that outlay within a reasonable time frame. So the government is actually doing the right thing by "guaranteeing" customers so to speak. In an environment free of the ability to regulate, I doubt any nuclear plants get built.