> And research into new designs that might improve on economics and safety isn't going to be as profitable or as common if there is always going to be a virtually insurmountable hurdle of objections on spurious environmental grounds, so the economic pressure that has caused coal plants to become more efficient can't be applied.
The core economic issues aren’t based on the physical design of the reactors. Better designs might have dropped net costs by 20%, but that doesn’t allow you to follow the demand curve. It doesn’t allow you to operate without vast quantities of water. It doesn’t reduce fuel costs, or allow efficient operation in extreme temperatures. Let alone figure out reasonable regulations in a small corrupt country that’s just going to build one.
Worse, the industry can’t afford to invest it’s own money in these kind of improvements. We aren’t talking 100’s of millions or low billions, were talking 10’s of billions that might possibly payoff decades in the future. People see Nuclear already reviving billions in research funding and it hasn’t really paid off yet. That’s what makes such investments difficult.