The plants constructed after three mile island don't actually have considerably different designs. The main things dictating a tractor's safety is the design (chiefly, pressurized water reactors versus boiling water reactors) and the existence of secondary containment. All plants have secondary containment in the US. And most, both before and after Three Mile Island, are pressurized water reactors. The designs of nuclear plants didn't change appreciably, but what did was the pace of plant construction. It got smaller, and economies of scale were lost.
If you're going to accuse me of dishonesty, it'd be good to at least try to explain what I lied about. Did plant construction not slow down? You have the history of nuclear plant construction available to you in the previous comment. If you want to make the claim that it was plant designs changing that led to raised costs, then it'd be good to explain how nuclear plants changed.
You showed a graph of prices which decreased a little with the first few large scale PWRs (before the industry had much experience with grid scale facilities), then continuously increasing from late '67 through '72 when construction was at its peak. Then resuming higher than it had been when when there was no experience and continuing to increase for the second peak of construction start (which was when those first set were just finished).
If what you said was remotely true, then the graph -- which you showed me -- would have its lowest price at the reactors which were permitted around '75 and finished around 85 because this is when the number of recently finished reactors was at its highest (and on par with the late 80s) and when the number of just started reactors was roughly as high as it has ever been.
This is the opposite of what it shows.
You are showing a direct contradiction of your thesis and claiming it somehow proves it. Ergo you are directly lying whilst showing proof you are lying. This is what gaslighting is.
The graph shows a negative learning rate, a positive correlation between under construction plants and price, a positive correlation between recently finished plants and price, and for the non-demonstration section, a negative economy of scale.
There are reasons outside that graph many of those aren't true or aren't the only reason for expense due to confounding factors, but that's not what you said.
If you're going to accuse me of dishonesty, it'd be good to at least try to explain what I lied about. Did plant construction not slow down? You have the history of nuclear plant construction available to you in the previous comment. If you want to make the claim that it was plant designs changing that led to raised costs, then it'd be good to explain how nuclear plants changed.