> However, the main reason is the economy. Yes but the economy is not free of consideration of these other factors. > The costs of solar, wind and batteries a

> However, the main reason is the economy. Yes but the economy is not free of consideration of these other factors. > The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially They are no longer dropping exponentially and insofar they do its because of mass production. Something not unique to renewable. If all world governments had invested the same in nuclear we could see the same kind of price reductions. > 2. A nuclear reactor cannot be shipped, it has to be build on site. This is not universally true. Some reactors can be ships and others can be shipped in a small number of parts. > A change in regulation might lower the costs, but it's not going to improve much the innovation dynamics. You are missing how good current regulation are at destroying innovation. Its literally impossible to build an small example reactor to do research. Its basically either is a very tiny university research reactor, or alternatively you need a full operational license but guess what, currently in the US its not even remotely possible to get an operational license for a non-PWR. So why would anybody even do research? This is beyond a whole bunch of other issues with nuclear regulation. > In conclusion, all this talking is mostly irrelevant: nuclear reactors are simply not going to be built because they are not competitive. So in conclusion, we destroyed the nuclear industry and nuclear research for the most part and they are not competitive, therefore lets never do anything to fix that. Yes, nuclear innovation cycle will always be slower, but the same can be said for trains, or many other things that are very useful.