wwoliver04 t1_ix6gqbl wrote
Reply to comment by wittgensteins-boat in Higher energy prices are a call for more renewables and maybe nuclear, not more pipelines by TeacherGuy1980
More like 5 - 7 years, literally took 1 google search
And we could easily fund those new plants with just a portion of the amount of capital going into new LNG projects. If we wait for utility companies to do the right thing then it will never happen. LNG delivers their shareholders profit much faster, hence the heavy investment
wittgensteins-boat t1_ix6i1rh wrote
You left off the.
- planning and system power demand regime trend planning,
- site research and aquisition,
- engaging with an overall contract. with a design engineering construction consortium,
- developing a site specific design,
- and nuclear plant design and operating licensing.
- and environmental impact research and report,
- and other water and govermental permits and regulatory processes,
- and bonds for financing,
- overall, of 10 years.
Construction occurs after all of these activities have alignment.
To build a house you need a construction permit and other permits, acquisition of a site, and a capable construction entity, materials acquisition and financing, and that is before the land is first dug up.
wwoliver04 t1_ix7ot0g wrote
Yes, I’m fully aware of all the complexities regarding planning and licensing. My point was that it doesn’t take 20 years to build. And it definitely doesn’t mean we should rule it out as a viable option. These things can be fast tracked if the government changed regulations to incentivize faster construction. I’m not saying nuclear is the perfect solution but it’s a hell of a lot better than continuing to dump cash into new fossil fuel plants
wittgensteins-boat t1_ix7s4f7 wrote
Let me know how it goes, starting construction tomorrow on your seven year plan
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments