The reason for this has to do with the tremendous amount of capital each plant will require coupled with the significant amount of time that capital will be tied up until a plant starts to produce power.
A plant could easily cost over $7 billion and take almost 10 years to build. Those capital needs will compete in the markets (either the debt or the equity markets depending on how each project in financed), and increase the cost of capital for other business activities. For a few plants, this will not be a problem. If we want to push for 100 plants, we could be looking at the better part of a TRILLION dollars, money will have to come into the US capital markets from elsewhere.
There are only so many plants that can be under construction at a given time due to manpower and industrial capacity constraints. If we want to go past those limits, we will greatly increase the cost of each plant we build.
Do we want to have to invite the Saudi or Russian sovereign wealth funds to (once again) lend us money for critically important US projects?
We are far better off setting the policy and incentive environment for more US energy and letting the market decide how to fill the need.
Let us start with drill here, drill now while unleashing as many other resources and innovations as possible, including nuclear. (I have high hopes for pebble bed technologies, but if we are in a rush, utilities will be especially reluctant to take any extra risks.)
Where is there evidence of an unconsidered rush?
The last generation of nukes were each handmade to different specifications, like so many ships in bottles. Today we have standardized designs that make construction inherently faster and cheaper.
The other side of the equation is to clear away the artificial legal barriers. This must be McCain's highest priority after the election.
The French can build nuclear reactors in 5 years, why couldn’t we?