Vogtle is an outlier in most regards. A tech revolution isn’t really needed, the tech works fine. Simplifications of existing tech like the BWRX-300 seem to be gaining a lot of traction (in theory should be more expensive per watt, but can be contracted in more palatable sizes). TVE is pushing ahead with plans to build BWRX-300s. Canada is returning to building nuclear again. As is France. Poland. So on. Sadly it seems the US may lag but that’s the way with a lot of things in this country. It will still be good if other countries can make the advancements.
That tweet is a hopelessly optimistic reshaping of the data. The Nordhaus paper linked to in a reply is a far better assessment.
France's attempts inside France, Finland, and the UK all look like Vogtle. There's all Summer in the US, which fared even worse than Vogtle.
For US construction, Vogtle is a best case scenario, matching the disasters of the very last US disasters as well as European construction costs.
There is no financial backer that will continue to throw away money like what was done at Vogtle. The next US reactor definitely needs to be something massively different.
The SMR might be the next tech, and the BWRX-300 is somehow dubiously cast as an SMR, but "pushing forward" is just some press releases without much chance of success.
And that's the fundamental problem with nuclear, it's all hopes and dreams and press releases, along with missing deadlines and budgets if a sufficiently large fool can be found to front the money.
[1] https://twitter.com/_hannahritchie/status/163712120205237452...