It can't be clean, safe, smart (what does that mean?), or cheap because each installation must be handmade and completely custom and bespoke. Much like for bet

It can't be clean, safe, smart (what does that mean?), or cheap because each installation must be handmade and completely custom and bespoke. Much like for better or worse we could never have had "car culture" if every car ever made had to be custom designed and hand-built. Also note that we could never produce tens of millions of custom designed cars per year because there are not that many human car designers alive; likewise we simply cannot built 10,000 more nuclear reactors because we do not have that many living nuclear engineers such that we can afford to custom design 10,000 totally bespoke reactors. Also note that it took a century or so, but mass produced cars allow massive simulation for safety resulting in mass produced cars being VASTLY safer and less polluting than ancient 120 year old handmade cars. The argument in the linked article essentially boils down to a list of huge advantages that would come from mass production and mass investment in nuclear energy that cannot be permitted to happen because simple linear extrapolation of handmade production shows it would be "impossible" to reach those levels because there are no advantages from mass production. In summary, the authors can't make their minds up, do the economic gains from mass production exist or not exist? Now in practice, screwed up planet earth in 2022 might not be able to pull off mass production of nuclear power any more than we can currently pull off an interstellar space ship or similar technological daydreams. That's a serious argument against nuclear power, but the authors chose to be wishy washy instead and claim both sides of the argument that mass production either is awesome or doesn't exist, both at the same time.