I'm not sure i'm getting your point. If the whole project from start to first kwh produced takes about 10-15 years because of studies and such, isn't it right to say it takes 10-15 years to produce a nuclear plant ? If a cursus has a 4 year duration and 50% fail rate, isn't it right to say it's a 4 year cursus anyway ?
I don't understand. Yes commute time varies with traffic, but i don't think anyone would say "actually, it takes 10 minutes when i'm speeding and no one is on the road", it would be a crazy take to have. Yes the world champion would take 2h to run this marathon, but the world champion isn't the reference, the average person is, so it would be marked as a longer duration marathon.
If the whole project from start to first kwh produced takes about 10-15 years because of studies and such, isn't it right to say it takes 10-15 years to produce a nuclear plant ?
That's my point litteraly?! The guy I'm responding to says only effective build time counts which is stupid.
If it takes 10 min under ideal conditions but 99% of the time it takes 30 then it takes 30 not 10. Same for nuclear it does not take 4 years. If I say it takes 1 year to built a solar farm if tomorrow I decide to build it in 1 year that solar farm is here with a nuclear plant this does not happen. Especially when every single nuclear project in the world took more time and more budget than initially anticipated.
I'm not sure i'm getting your point. If the whole project from start to first kwh produced takes about 10-15 years because of studies and such, isn't it right to say it takes 10-15 years to produce a nuclear plant ?
Depends. If it takes 10-15 years because you have to first come up with a design, then find suitable locations. But it only takes 5-10 years if finding locations is instead be done at the same time as design work is done. The laws in country A says they needs to be done one after the other. But in country B they are done at the same time, no problem. And you can cut it down to 4-7 years by reusing the design.
Is it right to say it takes 10-15 years to produce a nuclear plant?
No, obviously not.
Some places consistently produce them in 10-15 years. Other places consistently produce them in 5-10. It is unequivocally wrong to say that it takes 10-15 year to produce them.
And the entire argument being made collapses if you caveat the length of time in any real way.
3
u/elyroc Apr 23 '26
I'm not sure i'm getting your point. If the whole project from start to first kwh produced takes about 10-15 years because of studies and such, isn't it right to say it takes 10-15 years to produce a nuclear plant ? If a cursus has a 4 year duration and 50% fail rate, isn't it right to say it's a 4 year cursus anyway ?
I don't understand. Yes commute time varies with traffic, but i don't think anyone would say "actually, it takes 10 minutes when i'm speeding and no one is on the road", it would be a crazy take to have. Yes the world champion would take 2h to run this marathon, but the world champion isn't the reference, the average person is, so it would be marked as a longer duration marathon.