Buildings are also “adapted for each location”, but there is still an entire corpus of standardized techniques to do that that massively reduces costs compared to literally solving the problem from scratch at each site.
And why is it the case that “we don’t have the skilled people to do that”? If people value it, they’ll pay for it- and people can learn new skills in response to market need / pay - there is no predetermined number of “ad-tech software engineers” for example, they were “created” by the people themselves responding to market forces (pay)
Maybe you could have a universally implantable design, and maybe you could train people with the relevant skillset. The point is: we haven’t, and we aren’t, so other ways of generating green power are easier and cheaper. Nuclear will play a role for sure (the climate crisis is such that we need to do all the things) but it won’t cover more than 10% of our energy needs. I would be glad to get a rosier outlook on nuclear though.
>Nuclear power is the largest source of electricity in France, with a generation of 379.5 TWh, or 70.6%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
>France is Europe’s biggest net electricity exporter in 2019, says report
>French electricity costs are just 59% of German electricity prices.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/electricity-export...
>Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 11.63% of electricity supply in 2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
>German power export surplus shrank 46.2% in 2020
https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-electricity-statisti...
Solar panels, batteries, and wind mills are comparatively easy to produce at ridiculous volumes. They’re a cheaper, faster and cleaner solution.