BCRion said:
36 months may be optimistic, but it is believable from the point of starting construction to going critical. The reason a lot of plants took a long time was due to weaknesses in the licensing process allowing for interruptions and delays at many junctures. This increases construction time and drives up costs substantially.
New regulatory procedures are in place to hopefully reduce this occurrence. For instance, the reactor design is licensed separately and before the plant is built, and there are set time periods for public debate.
Let me just elaborate some on what BCRion has said.
The licensing process in the USA is a two step process. First the utility applies to build
the plant; an action that can be, and frequently is; challenged in court. After a protracted
period of lawsuits and public comment - the construction permit is granted and the utility
can build the plant. After the plant is constructed, the utility has to apply for an
operating license; and the whole process - lawsuits and all, questioning whether the plant
should even exist; starts all over again.
Can you imagine building your home in such circumstances? You convince all the zoning
boards and planning boards that your house will be acceptable to the community and
obtain your building permit. Then after properly construnction the house as per the permit,
and as verified by the building inspector; you would then have to apply for a permit to
actually inhabit the house. During this second permitting process; anybody can challenge
any of the features and siting of the now completed house.
That's the way nuclear power used to be licensed in the USA. The Congress has done
some reform of the laws. Hopefully they have instituted a sensible process for licensing
new reactors.
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist