4 ms·
I think what that person means is that to get this actually built, is likely going to take at least 5 to 10 years of regulatory and government action. On the lo
by Overtonwindow 4y ago
I think what that person means is that to get this actually built, is likely going to take at least 5 to 10 years of regulatory and government action. On the local level. That's not counting anyone that might throw up roadblocks, such as environmental, and safety. That could easily extend this out another five or 10 years.
If a company wanted to build this reactor today, speaking as a government bureaucrat, you are looking at least 10 years before they even break ground.
- justahuman74 4y agoAre there places were they'd receive less regulation, such as on federal land or a military base?
- giantg2 4y agoFederal land and less regulation are closer to antonyms than synonyms. Federal government contracts tend to be more involved than most. The military might consider a reactor like this for remote installations. I think they've had similar ideas/tests in the past. Not sure those ever panned out though.
- knute 4y agoThere were nuclear reactors run by the military in Antarctica, Greenland, and Alaska in the late 60s and early 70s, but they were all shut down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program#List_of_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program#Lis...
- moloch-hai 4y agoFor reasons. Not regulation, and not hippies.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> going to take at least 5 to 10 years of regulatory and government action. On the local level On the coasts, sure. In Wyoming, Texas or New Mexico, much quicker [1]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/uemplystate.php https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/uemplystate.ph...