3 ms·
50 nuclear plants are neither cheap or fast to be built. I don't even know if we have the supply chain in the whole world and the technical man power to build 5
by elzbardico 5y ago
50 nuclear plants are neither cheap or fast to be built. I don't even know if we have the supply chain in the whole world and the technical man power to build 50 nuclear plants at the same time.
- native_samples 5y agoDefinitely do not. There are only two companies in the world with the ability to forge the steel needed for reactor hulls, iirc. One is in Japan and has a massive backlog of orders. The other? It's Russian.
- thrashh 5y agoNot to mention Germany had just decided to shut down all of their reactors, following Fukushima.
- colechristensen 5y agoYeah well, doesnt seem to be working too well for them with record high energy prices and a geopolitical situation where their hands are tied because they need to keep importing gas.
- bitcharmer 5y agoTo people who understand the political and environmental implications of this it is clear that this was the most anti European move this country executed since 1939. Germany cannot be trusted
- arrosenberg 5y agoWe didn't have the capacity to produce 300K warplanes in 1939 either, but we did it by 1945. It's just excuses for those with power to as little as possible.
- colechristensen 5y agoSo? The easy fast solution is what got Europe in the position of not being able to meaningfully sanction Russia. Yes, doing something big would require many things. Building a bunch of them at the same time would allow you to save many of the pitfalls of nuclear construction: having to redesign each one from scratch. You’d build power plant factories, fifty of the same plant around the country/continent.