zlacker

> it's impossible to build a full-sized reactor in less than 10 years, and the usual over-run is 5 years

I'm curious why that is. If we know how to build it, it shouldn't take that long. It's not like we need to move a massive amount of earth or pour a humongous amount of concrete or anything like that, which would actually take time. Then why does it take 15 years to build a reactor with a design that is already tried and tested and approved?

>>perryi+(OP)
> I'm curious why that is.

When you're the biggest fossil fuel producer in the world, it's vital that you stay laser-focused on regulating nuclear power to death in every imaginable detail while you ignore the vast problems with unchecked carbon emissions and gaslight anyone who points them out.

>>perryi+(OP)
Well, you do have to move a lot of earth and pour A LOT of concrete :) Many steps have to be x-rayed, and many other tests done before other steps can be started. Every weld is checked and, all internal and external concrete is cured, treated, and verified. If anything is wrong, it has to be fixed in place (if possible) or removed and redone. It's a slow process and should be for many steps.

One of the big issues that have occurred (in the US especially) is, that for 20+ years there were no new plants built. This caused a large void in the talent pool, inside and outside the industry. That fact, along with others has caused many problems with some projects of recent years in the US.