Right, but that's why we it won't be a win until it's generating. We don't know that this manufacturing method will work out better than prior attempts.

The AP1000, was supposed to address construction problems by being able to ship in large parts already constructed. But that failed so miserably that SMRs-long ignored because they weren't thought to be economically efficient-became the last ditch effort to build nuclear. And the AP1000 failed because of all the on-site mismanagement of things as simple as concrete pours.

SMRs are unproven in at least two regards: 1) ability to manufacture in a factory economically, and 2) ability to construct all the on-site infrastructure for the SMR to generate the electricity.

>We don't know that this manufacturing method will work out better than prior attempts.

There are never certainties in anything except in hindsight. Most people with expertise who have reviewed SMR designs (and there are many) believe there's a high probability of the central manufacturing concept being able to work. Factories are a very well known concept at this point.

Renewable builds typically come in within 10% of the contracted cost. You get certainty by installing things in very large quantities, with rapid cycle time.

> ability to construct all the on-site infrastructure for the SMR to generate the electricity.

I'm a little confused by this, as all existing reactor designs required both the reactor and their infrastructure to be built on-site. I'm not sure why you think it would be an open question to just do the infrastructure.

I see what you mean now. The unknown of if it will be successful. Not the existence of the intent. You wrote it, I just misunderstood it.