> Construction time is misleading.

Please support your claim.

We were talking about cost, and cost is directly proportional to construction time because financing (interest) is the primary cost of nuclear power plant construction.

It’sa lot harder to find investors for a project that takes 20+ years from planning to first income than for a project that takes seven and a half years.

I’m still waiting for better cost estimates than what Lazard gives.

Simple:

Take the Vogtle-3 time, divide by average time to construct a nuclear reactor.

Apply factor to Lazard "estimate".

If it is so simple, can you do that math for us?

Even going by that ridiculously oversimplified calculation, and taking best-case numbers 0.75*$141 (10 years from first concrete poured to grid connection vs your 7.5 years average) is still barely competitive with worst-case Wind+Storage and more expensive than solar as Lazard estimates. And those are proven numbers from real projects not some pie in the sky guesstimates.

Your numbers don't add up.

Vogtle was only delayed by 25%, 2.5 years? I thought it was such a disaster and this proved nuclear doesn't work?

Now it's all good?

This says the delay was 7 years:

https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtl...

Oh, and the plant will still be cost effective, apparently, even with those delays.

Oh, and the solar numbers include sufficient batter storage? I saw something about 4h for half the capacity on some of the graphs. Most didn't explain at all.

As I said above, where you didn't believe me, construction times are misleading. First concrete poured was 2013. If you don't like the numbers, please suggest a better cost estimate. As it is, nuclear seems to be expensive.

"LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years"

https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANE...