I am well-versed in the challenge of supplying natural gas to Florida and about the high rate of utilization of their current pipeline infrastructure. I have also followed the difficult challenge of building long infrastructure projects (roads, electric transmission lines, and gas pipelines) in Florida for the past 40 years or so. (My dad was the supervisor of transmission substations when FP&L built their 500 kva "coal by wire" project to move electricity from large coal plants they owned in Georgia down to southeast Florida.)
See, as just one example, this article from December 2012 that describes a long running problem for the state.
Secondly, costs for complex industrial products like nuclear power plants do not come down by themselves and they will not come down by waiting for new technology. They come down by practice and learning curves. "Learning" curves are not driven just by allowing people to practice and become better at their job, they are driven by reusing designs, increasing production rates to spread overhead costs, and reusing tooling and other capital equipment.
I am sorry if you think that building systems that will last for 60 years is not worth the effort. The reality is that electricity is not a fad product; it will continue to be in demand long after the Vogtle plant is retired. It is not a product where technical innovation makes old infrastructure obsolete - there are sixty and seventy year old power plants operating today that are quite competitive because they convert cheap fuel to electricity in a reasonably efficient manner.
There is no doubt in my mind that nuclear professionals need to become more cost conscious and bring our projects to completion in less time and with less effort. It is not about "sharpening our pencils", though. It is about doing things correctly, working to eliminate non-value added processes, resisting non-safety added regulatory ratcheting, and working to stop the ability of frivolous suits to add to the cost of construction.