Nobody mentions the 15-year supply chain gap to get there.

This NYT chart shows the divide. China trends toward $2/watt across 33 reactors under construction.

Vogtle hit $10/watt after $35B and seven years of delays.

But here's what your feed won't tell you: that gap isn't about better technology or cheaper labor.

It's about industrial infrastructure we spent 30 years dismantling.

When someone points to Chinese prices, here's what they actually built first:

China's foundation (20+ years):
- 58 operating reactors, 33 more under construction
- Single standardized design (Hualong One) across all sites
- Localized supply chain for nuclear-grade components
- Trained workforce that moves project to project
- Reactor vessel manufacturers operating at scale

America's reality:
- Vogtle: our only new reactors in 30 years
- Supply chain that atrophied after 1990
- 40% of nuclear workforce retiring this decade
- 600,000 unfilled construction/manufacturing positions nationwide
- Every new project starts from scratch

The math nobody's doing:

DOE analysis shows optimal nuclear economics require building 10-20 reactors sequentially. Not announcing them. Actually completing construction.

That's how learning curves work. Supply chains mature. Workforces gain muscle memory. Contractors master the sequencing. Costs drop with each unit.

If we launched an aggressive program today:
- Years 1-3: Stand up enrichment capacity (DOE estimate: 3-4 years)
- Years 4-7: Complete first reactor
- Years 8-15: Deliver reactors 2-5 (each one faster)
- Years 16-25: Build reactors 6-20 (approaching China costs through repetition)

Translation: We're racing to 2040, not 2030.

What actually bridging this gap requires:

60,000 new workers with specialized nuclear certifications by 2035. Domestic reactor vessel manufacturing at scale. Nuclear-grade component pipeline. Standardized design locked across 10+ projects. $200-300B total investment covering supply chain buildout, workforce development, and reactor construction with federal backing.

Most importantly: Pick one design. Build it 20 times. Resist every urge to customize. Accept that reactor #1  costs $10/watt so reactor #15  can hit $3/watt.

(SMRs promise faster deployment, but factory production remains 5-10 years from commercial scale)

This is exactly how China did it. How South Korea did it. How France built 56 reactors in 15 years during the 1980s.

So when someone says "just build cheap nuclear like China," they're technically correct.

They're just not mentioning the 15-20 year industrial buildout that comes first. Or that we'd need to start yesterday to see results by 2040.

We can close this gap. But it requires acknowledging we're not restarting an industry from 2015. We're restarting it from 1990.

The real question: Does America have the political will to fund 15 years of "why is nuclear still expensive" headlines while the learning curve does its work?

Original Linkedin Post