You're massively oversimplifying pretty much everything involved here. Nuclear reactors are not just pressure cookers with concrete shielding, they're very complicated machines. Even countries with a, let's say rather speedy certification and construction process like China need years, if not decades to build a reactor. From a design that already exists.

You're proposing an unproven reactor, with unproven economics, retrofitted in an unproven way into aging infrastructure, using factories that don't exist yet. Why?

Seriously, give me one viable reason, why any sane person would do that? I'm deliberately ignoring all safety concerns, this is just about economics. We have proven, existing, scalable and cheap technologies (wind, solar). Yes, they do have downsides, like any technology, but those are known, quantifiable and solvable. So why would an investor give money to a nuclear company? There are currently two reasons: expectations of subsidies and an almost insane desire for anything nuclear out of principle (this is you).

I'm not against nuclear power per se, but currently, there's simply no viable approach to that.

[–] Clarke311@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Do me a favor and read. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-certifies-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Nuclear%20Regulatory%20Commission,use%20in%20the%20United%20States.

If we can get economies of scale involved that solar and wind currently utilize then we will also see a similar massive drop in price