>> 2) Vogtle is Lazard's ONLY source of data for new nuclear > Adding Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, the proposed EPR2 fleet, Virgil C. Summer ...

...doesn't broaden the data on which you base your conclusions nearly enough to make any broad predictions. Even if things were normal, a couple of hand-picked examples don't show much of anything. But things are not "normal" with that selection.

All of these projects are of just two reactor types, the Westinghouse AP-1000 and the French EPR.

One of these has even been discontinued by its manufacturer, because it was too difficult to build. Do you know which?

All of these builds were also First of a Kind (FOAK) builds. Westinghouse had submitted plans for the AP-1000 to the NRC that were not actually buildable. Do you think that generalizes to future AP-1000 builds, now that they have modified the plans to make them buildable and have, you know, built them?

Speaking of the different between FOAK and NOAK builds (Nth of a Kind): China's first two AP-1000 reactors took about 10 years to build. They are now building a slightly uprated version, the CAP-14000 (so 1,4GW electric instead of 1,0GW), in 5 years. For $3.5 bn.

Coming back to FOAK builds: Hinkley Point C had 7000 changes applied by the regulator to the design while it was being built.

Are you saying we need to broaden our data to imaginary reactors the west did not build to pad the numbers?

The currently proposed handout from tax money for the French EPR2 fleet is 11 cents/kWh and interest free loans. Sum freely.

> Do you think that generalizes to future AP-1000 builds, now that they have modified the plans to make them buildable and have, you know, built them?

Yes. The total cost for the proposed three Polish AP1000s is $47B. The final cost for Vogtle was $37B. A near equivalent cost per GW. Poland haven't even started building and thus haven't begun to enter the long tail of cost increases for nuclear construction. Only beaten in size by the Olympics and nuclear waste storage.

> Coming back to FOAK builds: Hinkley Point C had 7000 changes applied by the regulator to the design while it was being built.

Lets blame everything on ”FOAK”. Despite Hinkley point C being reactor 5 and 6 in the EPR series. But that is of course ”FOAK”.

Then allude that the next UK reactor will be cheaper. Despite the projected cost for Sizewell C is £38B before even starting compared to the current projection at £42-48B for Hinkley Point C.

Sizewell C will be two EPR reactors. You know, the reactor you called discontinued. Despite it not being discontinued.