> If they build 15 individual projects instead of managing this as a single big project, yeah that is very ambitious

Surely it would increase variance of outcomes, but the expectation is the same of each and overall?

Agree it would be mad though. Seems already a bit mad not to standardise internationally on a rough blueprint, or the modular thing in the news occasionally, and just churn out basically the same thing everywhere as needed.

▲

mixdup 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah I mean obviously each one would be managed on its own to an extent but one big problem we have in the US at least is that we build so few reactors that each one is bespoke. They may be based generally on certain designs but they will vary enough that operators and maintenance engineers have to train and be certified on each one, and that training and certification does not carry over to any other facility. Parts are bespoke and can't be used from one to another

If Canada builds them all similar enough that you only need one simulation/training facility, parts can be used between all of them, engineers can move from one to the other, and otherwise they are as close to each other as possible they will get incredible economies of scale that we don't typically get in North America in this industry

	▲	novok 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Could be a good way to kickstart a canadian nuclear industry that would expand into the US, exploiting the a big thing the US is bad at, coordinating infrastructure projects with multiple government groups, not making infrastructure builds incredibly overpriced and take an incredible amount of time and not being hyper litigious.