> Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. Citing numbers from the 70s does nothing to further your a

> Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. Citing numbers from the 70s does nothing to further your argument. We can take a look at all plants we have attempted to construct in the west the past 20 years. - Virgil C. Summer: Contract: 2008. Cancelled 2017 - Vogtle Contract 2008, first reactor done 2023, second 2024(??) - Watts Bar: Construction start 1972, cancelled 1985. Restarted 2007. Finished 2016. - Flamanville: Construction start 2007. Hopefully finished 2024. - Hinkley Point C: Political decision and construction start 2008. Investment decision 2013. Hopefully done by 2028. - Olkiluoto 3: Construction start 2005. Done 2023 - Hanhikivi: Never passed the phase when they tried to certify a Russian reactor for western safety requirements - NuScale SMR Cancelled before they even started building. 7.5 years is simply a laughable prospect in 2023. > "LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years" even for the "expensive" US Westinghouse AP1000 A 60 year payback time + 15 years construction is 75 years. That is like Stalin, FDR and Churchill at the height of the second world war making investments that only pans out in 2023. In the real world, where you spend your own money, that is called insanity. The risk is huge, and extending the amortization cost like that is simply bad math. You should understand the Time Value of Money and suggesting such amortization times are simply nonsensical. Understanding the Time Value of Money: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp But this is typical nukebro accounting. Finding the lowest possible number in the face of reality and then with the blindfold on repeating it hoping that we can subsidize nuclear enough to make it happen one more time. Just skip seeing the subsidies.