For some values of "could". If your country hasn't built a working public nuclear power plant in several decades, at what point should we switch from "could" to "couldn't"? The UK built several in the 1960s, now we have one in progress built by France, which is 10x more expensive, overbudget, delayed, and I wouldn't be certain of it ever being finished until I see it.

Last time I looked, the USA was in a similar position. Hasn't started building one in at least 40 years[1] and the one I saw on that list finishing in 1990 (Seabrook) I thought might be more recent, says it was permitted in 1976, took 14 years to get Unit 1 working and Unit 2 was cancelled due to delays, and cost overruns. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

The current 92 of them provided 20% of the USA's electricity generation. So you'd need another 368 to do the other 80%. How long will they take to build, 15 years each? 55 years to go all nuclear, assuming you build ten at a time. How do you get from "we haven't built a nuclear power plant in 40 years" to "we could build 10 at a time continuously for the next half-century" in a convincing way?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...

> "we haven't built a nuclear power plant in 40 years" to "we could build 10 at a time continuously for the next half-century" in a convincing way?

The same way we were like let's go to the moon, build the transcontinental railroad or some nuclear bombs. Everything is a hell of a lot easier and possible if you have alignment.

As with most technical projects, the technical problem is usually not the barrier to achievement.

Did I say ten at a time? I meant 120 at a time. (15 years for 120, 15 years for 240, 15 years for 360 (Assuming the demand for power does not increase in the next half-century)).

One moon rocket, in an age of rocketry, competing with the Russians. 120 continuous nuclear power plants in an age of struggling to build a train line in California. One moon rocket to visit the moon which would look amazing, versus fighting climate change which the incumbent President thinks is a hoax. Not being able to get alignment is a valid reason to question "could".

> Not being able to get alignment is a valid reason to question "could".

I agree. That's precisely what I mentioned was the only barrier in achieving it. The answer to getting it done is getting alignment from various stakeholders.

Many of the people that think it's a hoax or the ones that don't believe it's doomsday support nuclear plants. That's always been the case in the US.

You can get alignment without even agreeing on why to go nuclear. This escapes the doomsdayers and the climate crusaders. And based on your comment... you.

I mean - you provided a perfect example. You mentioned our outgoing President thinking climate change is a hoax while we are talking about nuclear plants. And he supported nuclear plants.

People with different concerns and end goals can't talk and agree on things that would help both of their agendas.

You want nuclear plants? Pitch national security to one group. Pitch saving the world to the other. Pitch cleaner air to another.

You aren't going to get anything done if you try to convince them that they need to believe your reason.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson's dad told him - it's not enough to be right. You must be effective.

Everybody wants energy and a lot of people want low CO2 energy, so the only thing you need to convince people of is the safety of nuclear, which it is, it's just been the marketing campaign for it has been terrible over the past 60 years.

Of course we could, but it's a thought exercise.

Yes, and my comment is an extension of the thought exercise...