Yes, and every new nuclear plant has to be mothballed for decades as a vital element to its construction. It's so the concrete can cure properly, right?

You're going beyond advocacy into sheer lunacy. Nuclear power plants do not take longer to build than the WWI, WWII (including incidentally the entire Manhattan project), and the Korean, Vietnemese, Iraqi, and Afghanistan wars combined. And I could probably jam some more things in there, since I'm not really looking up the time frames and just eyeballing it... because that's how stupid your claim is.

I don't know whether to hope that you realize the degree of BS you're spouting and that you're being deliberately mendacious, or to hope that you actually believe it and are at least being honest to what you think about the world.

It is sad to see that nuclear advocacy has simply become telling people they or their ideas are stupid because they point out the political reality of the world.

It doesn't matter that it takes far less than 49 years to actually construct the physical manifestation of a nuclear power plant.

What matters is why it took so long to build.

You can't solve those problems by insulting people.

This is circular. You are saying that we should have policy B, partly because A is too expensive. Why is A too expensive? Because of policiy B!