My point was more specifically about push to use only light water moderated reactors, and yes for various reasons those were generally done even among nuclear a

My point was more specifically about push to use only light water moderated reactors, and yes for various reasons those were generally done even among nuclear armed states (because you want to keep certain things close and because an LWR can be sold elsewhere). However I'd argue that in terms of total lifespan costs the increased waste production of LWRs is considerable portion of perceived costs - essentially the long-term storage fears vs burn down in fast reactors etc. Plus the focus on LWRs ensured that research in more capable designs was stiffled. Do not take this "rah rah nuclear best renewables suck" though. Though I'd be very interested in how costs would go if we taxed/penalized emissions do the max - essentially, I consider every new fossil fuel plant, including gas backup for renewables, to be a policy failure. My personal dream is overprovisioning with nuclear and renewables and instead of curtailment try to funnel extra power into other, previously uneconomical things (replacement of coal in smelting with actual green hydrogen, stuff like that)