On Fri, 14 May 2010 00:17:43 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:42:05 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
To be honest, a few more major grid incidents like 2008, but slightly
more severe to actually result in forced domestic load shedding (ie
power cuts without warning) would change a few people's minds about
nuclear power.


But nuclear power is not the answer to the energy gap, because it
takes at least nine years to build and commission a nuclear power
station.

Nuclear would be four or five years too late, as we will have a
shortage of generating capacity in 2014/2015.

Thats entirely the fault of people like you.


Wasn't me. I left the nuclear industry back in 1989, after working on
the construction of two nuclear stations and being a specialist
adviser on several more.


So we had better throw in more gas stations hadn't we? and hope we have
enough roubles for the gas meter.


That has already been decided.


But I think you can BUILD a nuke quicker than that. Its the planning
permission and legals that holds it up.


No, that's how long it takes to build. The French build them fastest,
and nine years is about right. The two French nuclear projects
currently under construction were due to take nine years, but are each
currently running over two years late. One is in France and the other
is in Finland.