> Ah yes, politics wants it to be uneconomical that is why NuScale's nuclear power plant has doubled its costs. It is certainly not the cost of input materials or changes in the interest rate, which makes long financing durations significantly more expensive.
You're talking about recent events that apply to any kind of large scale construction project. If that was the reason then why didn't anyone build a hundred nuclear plants during the decade+ of low interest rates when building materials were cheaper?
> but somehow the nuclear hating politicians don't seem to mind paying the inflated bills
They're not the same politicians. And subsidies aren't as effective as actual regulatory reform because they don't scale, which the opponents know so they don't fight them as hard. They can stand adding 3 GW of nuclear plants to the US grid; adding 300 GW would shut down a large fraction of existing fossil fuel generating plants. But the only way that happens is if you address regulatory inefficiency because large subsidies only fit in the budget when you're not building many new plants.
You're talking about recent events that apply to any kind of large scale construction project. If that was the reason then why didn't anyone build a hundred nuclear plants during the decade+ of low interest rates when building materials were cheaper?
> but somehow the nuclear hating politicians don't seem to mind paying the inflated bills
They're not the same politicians. And subsidies aren't as effective as actual regulatory reform because they don't scale, which the opponents know so they don't fight them as hard. They can stand adding 3 GW of nuclear plants to the US grid; adding 300 GW would shut down a large fraction of existing fossil fuel generating plants. But the only way that happens is if you address regulatory inefficiency because large subsidies only fit in the budget when you're not building many new plants.