Argentina recently announced a plan to complete the Atchua II project that was started in 1980 and suspended in 1996 after completing approximately 80% of the project. Brazil, the United States, the Philippines, Iran, and probably several other countries are also taking a hard look at partially completed nuclear power plants to determine if economic and environmental considerations have changed enough to justify a decision to complete the projects and begin producing electricity.
There are many good reasons for following through with existing projects, especially if the equipment has been well cared for during the construction lapse.
As a recent returnee from a European vacation, where many of the towns and cities proudly show off their cathedrals, I started thinking about how many of those cathedrals were constructed over a very long time with lots of interruptions in the process. I also thought about the fact that nearly every cathedral that I have ever seen is in a constant state of refurbishment.
It seems to me that there is a lesson here for architects, engineers and taxpayers. Sometimes, if a structure supplies a valuable service, it is worth the effort to build it right and to keep maintaining it for future generations. If there is a temporary halt in the construction process, it is sometimes worthwhile to put the project into a safe storage mode where plans and partially completed structures are preserved for someone else to complete.
I wonder if there are any regrets that some partially completed or even fully completed projects (like Shoreham) were not well preserved and are not candidates for completion or restoration?