I think, equally as important as investment, is reducing third-party obstructionism. Environmental justice and anti-nuclear activists Continue to thwart these kind of projects with frivolous lawsuits.
A lawsuit that you lose is fine, one that is frivolous really isn't, in those cases even the attorneys may get sanctioned (by the judge, or, less commonly, by the bar to the point where if they keep it up they may end up being disbarred).
As an example, the nuclear storage facility was delayed, and ultimately cancelled, because the geologic analysis had only established the stability of the ground for the next 800,000 years, and the lawsuit demanded that it be extended to several MILLION years into the future. ...and they WON.
Absolute INSANITY.
What is the problem exactly? Costs are often awarded in many jurisdictions.
It will be years before the lawsuit gets to that point, and if you are willing to trade money for a delay, the prospect of having to pay 2x the money for the same delay is hardly a deterrent.
Again: it is your opinion that these are frivolous lawsuits, and that's fine. But there are probably just as many (or more) people that think that they are not.
A frivolous lawsuit is one that does not have merit, has no facts supporting it and usually isn't intended to be won. The lawsuit itself is the goal. These don't qualify as far as I'm concerned. Not even close.
Move to Houston next to numerous chemical plants that blow up from time-to-time and let me know how those utopian talking points without regulation works out.
The problem isn't NIMBY's or regulations, it's insurance costs.
Obstructionism is not a problem with nuclear in the US, basic construction competency and diagnostic competency most certainly is though.
For the nuclear energy industry, environmental justice considerations are relevant to every stage of the life cycle of nuclear energy.
https://www.bdlaw.com/publications/nuclear-energy-and-enviro...
That article has nothing at all to do with Vogtle or Summer, has zero concrete claims, and is at most speculation about how things might be different in the future, and how some vague approaches might be used to make sure the nuclear industry fits in to some hypothetical and similarly vague push for vague values.
I find it very odd how nuclear advocates cannot provide evidence for their claims, and often change the point.
Honestly, I find it kind of rude that you claim to be providing one thing but then provide something completely unrelated, and act as if you actually did have evidence for your claims. It's extremely damaging to discussion, why should I trust anything you say from here on out if you are so unreliable? It's a huge problem that I run into with nuclear advocates, creationists, and anti-vaxxers. There's dedication to the causes but no dedication to conversational norms or even the basic standards of honesty.