• cynar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Fully agreed, though it’s also something you really don’t want done on too much of an accelerated timeline. Rushing the construction, when the fail-safes rely on it, and it will be an absolute bitch to fix later, is a poor plan.

    Unfortunately the red tape has become far too risk adverse. E.g. the reactors china is now building were designed in the UK. The UK government killed 5 attempts to get them built through red tape and time killing. Eventually a Chinese scientist found out about the plans. (With permission) he contacted the Chinese government. Sufficient to say, those plans formed the basis for the newer Chinese reactors they are building out now. They are also exporting the expertise, since most western countries have had their skilled engineers reach retirement, before passing on their skills and knowledge.

    In practice, you are looking at 5-10 years minimum, from site selection to power on.

    • 0x0@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      True

      In practice, you are looking at 5-10 years minimum, from site selection to power on.

      Still beats 20.

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Very true. It unfortunately doesn’t include the delays from bureaucracies throwing excessive red tape at the project, with the goal of, if not killing it, kicking the decision down the road till it’s someone else’s problem. The UK government has been problematic on that front.

        I might be an optimistic pessimist.