> If you're going to accuse me of dishonesty, it'd be good to at least try to explain what I lied about.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=2030
You showed a graph of prices which decreased a little with tye first few large scale PWRs, then continuously increasing from late 67 through 72 when construction was at its peak. Then continuing to increase for the second peak of construction start (which was when those first set were just finished).
If what you said was remotely true, then the graph -- which you showed me -- would have its lowest price at the reactors which were permitted aroun '75 and finished around 85.
This is the opposite of what it shows.
You are showing a direct contradiction of your thesis and claiming it somehow proves it. Ergo you are directly lying whilst showing proof you are lying. This is what gaslighting is.
The graph shows a negative, learning rate, a positive correlation between under construction plants and price, a positive correlation between recently finished plants and price, and for the non-demonstration section, a negative economy of scale.
There are reasons outside that graph many of those aren't true due to confounding factors, but that's notwhat you said.
If you're going to accuse me of dishonesty, it'd be good to at least try to explain what I lied about. Did plant construction not slow down? You have the history of nuclear plant construction available to you in the previous comment. If you want to make the claim that it was plant designs changing that led to raised costs, then it'd be good to explain how nuclear plants changed.