[Octoth0rpe]

> how can the success of a long-term project be ensured?

Well, for one by ensuring that 'long-term' means it starts at the start of a term and ends before the end of that term. At most that only rules out nuclear, at least wrt long term energy projects. And it's not like recent dem administrations were unfriendly towards nuclear. Vogtle 3/4 were approved early in Obama's term, and finished under Biden's.

[Sharlin]

"Long term" means decades when it comes to energy strategy, major infrastructure initiatives, and decarbonization. Four years is woefully inadequate for strategic planning, you’re operating on a tactical level at best.

[aboardRat4]

There is no reason to do long term projects with public funds. Private companies are not subject to the vagaries of democracy and can plan as long-term as they want.

[fch42]

Except funding is not everything that's needed for long term projects. There are other resources - workforce, supply chain integrity, legal entitlements and approvals, etc, that are all contributing to "plannable delivery" of long-term projects. And quite a few of these are very much subject to the vagaries of democracy.

Unless, of course, you assume (the ideal to be) an entirely anarchist business environment where whoever-with-resources can do whatever. Democracy, though, is not that.

[Sharlin]

Uh, okay.

[bradchris]

4 years gets you, historically, an 8-plex built in San Francisco. If you’re lucky. The ship is slowly turning, but that’s what institutional investors would call a short-term win in the most economically productive state in the USA.

I’m a supporter of it regardless of the cost, but for a “long term” project look at the California HSR, which was directly approved by voters 19 years ago and we’re still debating how to fund the majority of it, let alone actually build what we voted to construct and open in its entirety within 10 years.