Not an agenda, just common sense. The longer the build time the more apt to be addressed by public opinion as 'bad', also the longer build gives an open to cost overruns by changing economic conditions, remember the Reagan years of 20% interest rates?
If we can build a good partnership with the public AND decrease CO2 deposition in our atmosphere in a 'reasonable' time frame we could see a resurgence in our industry to rival the sixties.
Bigger, more armored, more delivered MW, for what tradeoffs, too long to build, monstrous for day to day surveilances, potential for a 'negative' public opinion built on the fact this new design is more aircraft attack resistant. I mean, come on, if a aircraft attack is that imminent on Nuclear sites then just don't build them, and this is an opinion of my neighbors and friends. Oh and 1600mw dump on a trip could be too much strain on grid lines. To me, the plant is like asking congress to allocate money to build nuke powered 'Montana' class battleships as they are bigger, more armored, and more 'impressive' than the Burke class destroyers we currently have built.
Getting AP 600-1000s' or ABWR's or ESBWR's built in 3-4 years is the answer. Prove to our public that we can build in a reasonable time frame and build 'Safe' plants as determined by NRC guidelines, but NOT get stupid and go for broke on more monuments to the futility of mans' ego and paranoia.
old coot