> do we just wave a magic wand We have at least 6 magic wands: 1) if the VVER 1200 truly cost 1.4 billion to construct in 4 years, nuclear economics are saved.

> do we just wave a magic wand We have at least 6 magic wands: 1) if the VVER 1200 truly cost 1.4 billion to construct in 4 years, nuclear economics are saved. 2) building a lot of marine nuclear plants https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html#economies-of-scale-and-economies-of-mass-production https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html#economies-of-scale-... They require far less concrete (no need to protect against seisms) and much less redundancy because the cooler (water) will always be there (the ocean won't disappear) hence preventing radiations escalation in a passive way. 3) using disruptively simpler/cheaper models https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull31-3/31302392529.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi... 4) using more complex but significantly more efficient models (I'm mainly talking about the underresearched supracritical reactors) 5) if SMRs are not a scam and can really have a fordism era 6) rationalizing et reconciloating regulations with cost effectiveness.