> Is this ambitious timeline even possible? Of course it is. Pick a design that can be built right now, which means the Chinese or Russians have to do it, bec

> Is this ambitious timeline even possible? Of course it is. Pick a design that can be built right now, which means the Chinese or Russians have to do it, because everyone else (Siemens, Areva, Westinghouse, ...) seem to have forgotten how to build theirs. One reactor produces 600-1400MW, so we're talking roughly 1500-3000 reactors. You set a timeline of about 40 years, or 15000 days. This means, construction of a reactor has to start every 5-10 days. Construction of a nuclear plant takes about 4 years or 1500 days, unless treehuggers are allowed to interfere with frivolous lawsuits. This means, 150-300 reactors will be under construction concurrently. Worldwide, that doesn't sound too bad. Let's build one reactor per week. > What happens once the "building" rush is over? More building to replace aging plants. At the end of your 40 year timeline, the plants built at its beginning are (nominally) at the end of their life. (Not really, but then again, 40 years into the future, 2TW won't be enough.) Let's build one reactor per week, forever. > that would still cost 5714 billion USD So what? Those 2TW of generating capacity are still going to be built, if only to replace broken down old plants. Capital cost for power plants varies a bit by technology, but 2000G$ are going to be spent on power plants no matter what; if the future is solar, it's going to be a lot more than 6000G$. > Can we mine enough fuel to power these plants? Will mining activity have to increase to meet the new demand? Can that mining be powered by nuclear energy? Is mining for nuclear fuel worse than coal? Yes, yes, mostly, no. If we actually embark on a massive nuclear program like this, we will run out of fuel fairly quickly (about 100 years). One generation of once-through burner reactors can be fueled easily, maybe two. After that, the Uranium may need to come from low grade sources, which is annoying, or breeders have to be used. > Is waste disposal feasible today in every country? Can this cost be reduced? Yes, and why bother? Waste disposal is more a political problem than a technical one. It isn't actually expensive. Arguably, the "waste" isn't waste and should be recycled instead of being disposed of. > Why would they want a power plant that is a juicy target for terrorism? Bullshit. This is called "drive by slander". Why do you do this when you (otherwise) appear to like nuclear power as a solution to climate change?