Reason there is not more of nuclear reactors is not the cost, it is regulation.
The reason for regulation is that failure is not an option --- unless you're willing to accept the cost of making a big chunk of a state uninhabitable for a very long time.
How much would failure cost? The Chernobyl exclusion zone is over 1000 square miles --- about half the size of Delaware. And it is expected to remain uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years.
Also, the Russian Academy of Sciences estimates that up to 1 million people may suffer premature death as a result of radiation exposure and contamination from the event.
In the long run, renewable energy is a lot cheaper.
> Reason there is not more of nuclear reactors is not the cost, it is regulation.
You also have to staff up. France has a good pipeline of available staff, because they have a bunch of plants already.
The US doesn’t have the enough plants to keep a staffing pipeline healthy, so we can’t rapidly expand plants without poaching talent from overseas. Not too attractive to nuclear engineers in the age of mass ice deportations.