3 ms·
That table doesn't support your thesis, specially when you think of the one reactor being built in France. Something being built means little when the time fro
by otherme123 4y ago
That table doesn't support your thesis, specially when you think of the one reactor being built in France.
Something being built means little when the time from "start" and "end" is meassured in decades. A better table would be "increase in nuclear output". E.g. fully self driving vehicles are being built, but little or none see the street, much less have a positive ROI.
Planned and proposed is even worse. A lot of them would never leave that status. Only energy super eager countries like China or India are effectively increasing nuclear capacity, and in a way that nobody knows if they are financially sound investments.
- modo_mario 4y ago>Something being built means little when the time from "start" and "end" is meassured in decades. If you'd go to check for the average build time of a nuclear reactor or the new reactors that come into service you'd notice they're often/typically connected and running 5-6 years after they start building. A lot of that is helped by china and the likes not having horror stories like Finland.
- pfdietz 4y agoIt's also helped by China starting the construction clock after concrete and steel are already in the ground. You can get good numbers by cheating.