Did you even read the footnote of the number you linked? > The analysis is based on publicly available estimates and suggestions from selected industry experts

Did you even read the footnote of the number you linked? > The analysis is based on publicly available estimates and suggestions from selected industry experts, indicating a cost “learning curve” of ~30% between Vogtle units 3 and 4. Analysis assumes total operating capacity of ~2.2 GW, total capital cost of ~$32.3 billion, capacity factor of ~97%, operating life of 70 years and other operating parameters estimated by Lazard’s LCOE v14.0 results, adjusted for inflation. 97% capacity factor for 70 years. Meaning for a "Vogtle" started today, i.e. entering planning in 2006 and operational by 2023 = 17 years we have: 2026 + 17 + 70 = 2114 Do you realize the absolute insanity of trying to predict the profitability of a new built nuclear plant into the 2100s? For anyone with a basic level of economic understanding that number is an admission that new built nuclear power is absolute insanity. EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds. And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics. And now you see the next part. That 97% capacity factor is also insanity in a world increasingly driven by renewables. EDF is today having trouble with their capacity factors reducing. How do you think that will play out? > Since we're apparently in the business of cherry picking, I chose Olkiluoto, with a levelized cost of €30/MWH. You do know that's wrong? Olkiluoto is also sitting up there with Hinkley, Flamanville and similar, but there are no public figures on the total cost. Only the settlement half a decade before the plant was completed, as costs and interest kept accumulating. The only difference is that they signed a fixed price contract and the French paid for the vast majority of the plant. So you can in some cases argue that the Finnish side had an acceptable cost. Not sure how you'll get the French to pay for this new built nuclear plant of yours. But I'm sure you'll work something out. Flamanville 3 is also sitting at ~180 per MWh. I also love that you quickly dimissed Hinkley Point C as the "worst project ever", even though the contract was signed before they even started building. Why don't you dare face reality? Why must new built nuclear power be the solution no matter the cost? Do you dare look up the proposed subsidies for Sizewell C? Even before they have started building the expect cost is almost up there with Hinkley Point C. EDF is at this point refusing any notion of a fixed price contract and are instead forcing a pure cost-plus expected profit pay as you go financing scheme. Where the ratepayers today pay enormous sums to maybe get some electricity in the 2040s. Have you looked at the Polish subsidy scheme? - The state gives a direct handout of ~€15B - The state takes all financial and construction risk - The plant gets a 40 year CFD which is adjusted to guarantee a profit for the plant. How can you square that with your view of nuclear power being cheap to build?