Vortex7 wrote:


Most of the new reactors proposed are unsurprsingly adjacent to old
reactors marked here. The reasons are eminently sound
- they already have grid feeds
- they already have access routes
- they already have secure sites
- they already have planning permission of a sort
- old decommissioned but still 'hot' reactors can be managed by the
newer reactor staff.
- skilled staff already exist in the area.

If all 16 sites got 3GW sets, we would entirely meet the current grid
needs for certainly base load, and a considerable amount more, at far
less cost and grid disruption and reliability than 'sustainable' energy.


I agree completely. No new sites are needed, just new hardware.

I wonder what is the cost and lead time for (say) a French "flat pack"
3GW Nuke?

Fastest nuke build from application to switch on is about 5 years IIRC,
but 7 is more reasonable. UK 10-12

Planning is the issue. Huge anti-nuke groups mobilising to delay things.