4 ms·
Sweden built one in 6 years (Barseback) and another in 5 years (Oskarshamn), both ran fine without causing nuclear disasters. And now almost 50 years later we
by TheChaplain 4y ago
Sweden built one in 6 years (Barseback) and another in 5 years (Oskarshamn), both ran fine without causing nuclear disasters.
And now almost 50 years later we have way waaay more knowledge, experience and technology to build safe powerplants within a short time.
The hindrance is bureaucracy. Ask anyone who is or have been working for the government how incredibly inefficient it is.
- locallost 4y agoIn the US, there was one nuclear plant that went online in this century: it is the second unit of the plant in Tennessee whose construction started in 1973. It was finished in 2016, after 43 years. There is also a construction in progress in Georgia, currently approaching 20 years of development. The problem with government inefficiency and nuclear is that the governments are the only ones that dare spend money on it. An example of a private investment was the plant in South Carolina that was halted after 9 billion spent. The reason was that they realized they would not make it in time to cash in on a subsidy, and without that the project would never ever be profitable. And normally you could say it happens, it's the company's money, but the debt is being paid by the utility's customers. They're paying for electricity from a power plant that does not exist. I don't understand the people that think this is a rational solution.