Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
I am not sure that it would really take 13 years to get a new reactor up
and running, if people were prepared to pay more for it.

Was listening to something about this on the radio a month or
so back. A significant issue is that we no longer have a nuclear
industry to build any reactors like we did in the past -- we no
longer have the likes of GEC and similar industries. Building up
such an industry is a non-starter in any reasonable timescale.
With nuclear demand increasing throughout the world, there's
already a significant waiting list on new orders at the moment.
Apparently the french have recently ordered another 5 or something
like that too. We could just carry on paying the french to build
them along their north coast for us, like we have been doing for
some time now, but we don't control those.

But 6-8 is certainly a practical minimum.

Which is probably why we may see some coal fired stations being built.

There probably is no other option if we are to keep the lights on.

Those of us who remember blackouts and fuel shoratges of the 70's had
best start reminding people.

I remember well -- I was at school at the time and thought it
was great fun. OTOH, part of my company has been hit by the
rolling blackouts in California in more recent years, and it
costs us about $1M per minute.

Gosh. A couple of weeks and that will *pay* for a nuclear set...