> Nuclear economics analysis shows that if you actually have a real industry with lots of people experienced in such plants, they become much, much cheaper and

> Nuclear economics analysis shows that if you actually have a real industry with lots of people experienced in such plants, they become much, much cheaper and far more predictable on timeline. All these experts must have retired in France. Half their reactors are out of order for planned and unplanned maintenance. You would expect nuclear to get cheaper over time, but the opposite has happened. SMRs are betting on turning the tide by reducing the manufacturing cost but they will have to deal with larger operation costs so it is not yet clear that this will make economic sense. The bet size is smaller though, so investors will be more likely to give it a try. > We could also eat up nuclear fuel waste and (hopefully) nuclear weapons material (as was done in the US with Soviet nukes). You can do this, but does it make economic sense. That is the question and the answer to that right now is no.