Because it’s a Gen III+ design.
> the last sentence seems to agree that the evidence is weak
It’s a new design.
> people who just care about getting the best outcome, aren't on a team that has drawn a predetermined conclusion, and are working with the data
Very few people who have done this conclude we should go all in on a single solution. Nuclear, natural gas, solar and wind look like a solid mix.
It’s cleaner than the alternatives and has its distribution infrastructure already built. While waiting for more solar, or waiting for more solar and wind and nukes, those coal and oil plants are still burning.
And yet... the Netherlands closed down the Groningen gas field because the green voters wanted it and because they showed a few slightly cracked walls on a few houses on TV and claimed it was because of the gas field (and not because of shoddy foundations and poor construction).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field
We also could have been doing fracking on land. Maybe in the future?
https://www.investigate-europe.eu/posts/europes-energy-crisi...
(2.9 on the Richter scale isn't much.)
And the biggest Danish gas field in the North Sea is still down due to the old off-shore facilities being scrapped and new ones being built. This is done by TotalEnergies and should have been completed more than a year ago. It was delayed by Covid-19 but should then have been completed by summer this year. It is still not complete :(
High expectations from TotalEnergies: https://totalenergies.com/projects/gas/tyra-major-offshore-p...
Danish realities: https://energinet.dk/gas/forsyningssikkerhed/tyra/
The last platform was only put in place in October 2022 (and there was still lots of work to do): https://energiwatch.dk/Energinyt/Olie___Gas/article14460490....
That doesn't exist yet.
>It’s a new design.
Which doesn't exist yet.
Vaporware is always cheaper.
Yes, it does. Per the original comment. AP1000s have been built and are generating power.
We have much more evidence of contruction being too slow (if that's what you mean); why is one example from the other side more convincing? Also, China is not directly comparable, being able to undemocratically externalize the welfare of residents, construction workers, and operators.
Also, the last sentence seems to agree that the evidence is weak ?
> the anti-nukes ... the pro-nuke
Maybe there are also people who just care about getting the best outcome, aren't on a team that has drawn a predetermined conclusion, and are working with the data.