4 reactors is a drop in the bucket. Concept to producing power 15+ years per plant. No standardized plug and play well tested dseigns. Electricity alone we're at 17 terrawatts. Need much more for electrification.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 *NO IT IS NOT* One of the most important things BOTH the pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear lobbies MUST STOP DOING is speaking BULLSHlT like the time taken to build nuclear. Both sides need to stop fighting each other. Nuclear is best for base load and renewables are best for load following and peaking. *TOGETHER* they make a solution. All the fighting is just the fossil fuel people causing more and more delays. Hinkley Point C with 2 x EPR 2s has had its construction schedule go from 10 to 12 years to build and commission. That's still better than the first 2 EPR 2s in France and Finland. The AP 1000s like those built at Vogtle took 9 years to build and commission. The 4 x AP1000s in China took 9 years took 9 years to build and commission. The South Korean APR 1400s built in Barakah took 9 years to built and commission. YES I know the Japanese reactors can be built in 4 years and CANDUs are also quicker, but who wants a Japanese reactor after Fukushima and the Canadian government rejected the Advanced CANDU but I don;t think that's relevant either. Sorry but I am an engineer and somethings just take the time they take to build NO MATTER who builds them or where they build them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't go nuclear because on the positive side we KNOW with reliability how long it will take. RELIABLE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES are incredibly important and now they are reliable that's a very serious positive for nuclear.
4 reactors is a drop in the bucket. Concept to producing power 15+ years per plant. No standardized plug and play well tested dseigns. Electricity alone we're at 17 terrawatts. Need much more for electrification.
The "Average" time to completion for a nuclear plant IS 8 years and getting lower.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 *NO IT IS NOT*
One of the most important things BOTH the pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear lobbies MUST STOP DOING is speaking BULLSHlT like the time taken to build nuclear. Both sides need to stop fighting each other. Nuclear is best for base load and renewables are best for load following and peaking. *TOGETHER* they make a solution. All the fighting is just the fossil fuel people causing more and more delays.
Hinkley Point C with 2 x EPR 2s has had its construction schedule go from 10 to 12 years to build and commission. That's still better than the first 2 EPR 2s in France and Finland.
The AP 1000s like those built at Vogtle took 9 years to build and commission.
The 4 x AP1000s in China took 9 years took 9 years to build and commission.
The South Korean APR 1400s built in Barakah took 9 years to built and commission.
YES I know the Japanese reactors can be built in 4 years and CANDUs are also quicker, but who wants a Japanese reactor after Fukushima and the Canadian government rejected the Advanced CANDU but I don;t think that's relevant either.
Sorry but I am an engineer and somethings just take the time they take to build NO MATTER who builds them or where they build them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't go nuclear because on the positive side we KNOW with reliability how long it will take. RELIABLE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES are incredibly important and now they are reliable that's a very serious positive for nuclear.