3 ms·

It doesn't matter that nuclear is cheaper if you can't build a nuclear plant. The difference is that a lithium battery facility can be installed and functional

by bsder 4y ago

It doesn't matter that nuclear is cheaper if you can't build a nuclear plant. The difference is that a lithium battery facility can be installed and functional in 12-24 months. A nuclear plant takes 12-24 years. Much like World War I strategies, a solution that nobody has the political will to implement isn't a solution.

erentz 4y ago
> The difference is that a lithium battery facility can be installed and functional in 12-24 months. These things aren't comparable without putting it together as a system. > A nuclear plant takes 12-24 years. You're thinking about wild outliers there. It's around 6.5 years median [1]. [1] https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-ti...
- gdy 4y ago
  Funny article. It talks about time to build nuclear reactors but never mentions Russia.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Why would it?
    - gdy 4y ago
      Rosatom builds faster than South Korea, which takes 9 years to build a reactor [0]. For example, the reactor in Belarus was built in 8 years[1]. The first reactor at the Akkuyu site in Turkey is going to be built in 6 years [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#United_Arab_Emirates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#Belarus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... [2] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Major-components-in-place-at-Akkuyu-1 https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Major-components...
      - erentz 4y ago
        > Funny article. It talks about time to build nuclear reactors but never mentions Russia. > ... > For example, the reactor in Belarus was built in 8 years[1]. Sorry to break it to you but Belarus is still not russia, yet. If you look again at the article you'll see lots of countries that have nuclear reactors are not specifically mentioned, however in the one section where countries are specifically mentioned a group for all former USSR countries is called out that includes russia and other countries. This will be due to how reactor data was recorded prior to the dissolution of the USSR. Slava Ukraini
        gdy 4y ago
        Just like UAE isn't South Korea but the reactors there are designed and built by a South Korean company. What's your point? Sorry to break it to you, but the USSR dissolved over 30 years ago.
        erentz 4y ago
        You are confused. The article talks about reactor construction time in countries. E.g. Hinkley Point C is being built in the UK, that means it gets recorded in data about construction in the UK, even though it is designed by a French company, and owned by a French and Chinese company. The same applies for reactors designed by Rosatom and built around the world. A VVER-1200 built in China may be a russian design, but the data is recorded as construction in China for obvious reasons. > Sorry to break it to you, but the USSR dissolved over 30 years ago. Yes, you're the one that was confused why Belarusian projects did not count as russian, and you ignored the Former USSR information in the article. If you would like to know why she aggregated the data that way and didn't break it out into before and after USSR dissolution, you should go and post a comment asking on her Substack.
        gdy 4y ago
        Firstly, it's meaningless -- the construction time depends on who is building, not where. Secondly, it doesn't matter -- reactors in Russia are built by Rosatom just a little slower and still on par with South Korea. I have zero interest in asking her about anything.
- bsder 4y ago
  That's from start of "building" not "planning". In the US, getting the permits and handling the planning far exceeds the actual construction. In addition, there have only been 7 reactors constructed in North America since 1990 and none from 1995 to 2005. I'm actually a fan of nuclear reactors. However, in the US, we simply don't have the political will to build them.
  - erentz 4y ago
    Wind and solar also have many years (and decades) of planning involved. And many also fail to get past the planning phase. > However, in the US, we simply don't have the political will to build them. Fair enough, though this article is about Australia. Here in the US we do have the TVA that is looking to go ahead with new nuclear. But we will likely lag other countries such as Canada (OPG and SaskPower are proceeding with new nuclear builds).
arcticbull 4y ago
Chicken and egg thing. If you listen to the DOE Loan Program head, he says it takes so long and costs so much because each plant is a bespoke hand-crafted special construction project. They can be made much cheaper and much faster if you standardize the design and copy-paste them to where it's a good fit. This isn't an issue inherent to nuclear power at all, but instead in how we approach it. This isn't speculation either, China is building 150 new plants by 2035. [1] > Much like World War I strategies, a solution that nobody has the political will to implement isn't a solution. That's just a tautology. [1] https://thediplomat.com/2022/09/powering-chinas-nuclear-ambitions https://thediplomat.com/2022/09/powering-chinas-nuclear-ambi...
- robbiep 4y ago
  Again, you’re saying that it’s cheap, but then responding to criticism they’re bespoke by presenting an untested technology that has further lead time delays and may even be vapourwear. You still can’t spin up an industrial base in less than 5-10 years, and there sure as hell isn’t the political will to ask the Chinese to build it for us
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    I didn't say it was cheap. I said current nuclear reactor technology is cheaper than a mix of renewables and lithium batteries. They're both quite expensive, and headline renewable 'low costs' exclude storage. But that's ok, I think the fact it's expensive isn't a reason to avoid either of them. I then said that we can also make it significantly cheaper than it is to construct nuclear plants, and offered a path presented by someone very knowledgeable about the space. Jigar Shah from DOE. [1] > ... but then responding to criticism they’re bespoke by presenting an untested technology that has further lead time delays and may even be vapourwear. What untested technology lol, nuclear has been around since 1955. I'm talking about layouts. > You still can’t spin up an industrial base in less than 5-10 years, and there sure as hell isn’t the political will to ask the Chinese to build it for us That's ok just get the Canadians to do it. Check out the CANDU family. [2] And you know all those solar panels are being made in China right? 85% of all panels - 45% of polysilicon comes from Xinjiang. So that's exactly what is being done. [3] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXRmlcsqHtk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXRmlcsqHtk [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor [3] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/china-made-solar-pv-created-imbalanced-global-supply-iea/627021/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/china-made-solar-pv-created...
panick21_ 4y ago
It takes 12-24 years if its a lazy one off with little political support. We also shouldn't measure time for a single plant, but for many. Fact is, France built like 50 in 20 years. And if you look at the UAE, its much more instructive. A country with no experience. Handed out a bid in 2009, first plant active 2020 and then plants going online 2021, 2022, 2023. And if you just keep going like that eventually you can finish 2 or more per year. France was finishing like 5-6 plants a year. If you look at Germany in 2000 for example. Had they done what France did in the 70/80s, Germany would have carbon free right now and they would have spent far less money then the 'Green Revolution' that they are engaged with now (and all the massive cost they will be paying the next 20 years). If you just do the math, based even on the prices that South Korea charged ULA, nuclear would be a no brain. And nobody can tell me Germany wouldn't have the engineering skill to do this.

by bsder 4y ago

erentz 4y ago

> The difference is that a lithium battery facility can be installed and functional in 12-24 months. These things aren't comparable without putting it together as a system. > A nuclear plant takes 12-24 years. You're thinking about wild outliers there. It's around 6.5 years median [1]. [1] https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-ti...

gdy 4y ago
Funny article. It talks about time to build nuclear reactors but never mentions Russia.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Why would it?
  - gdy 4y ago
    Rosatom builds faster than South Korea, which takes 9 years to build a reactor [0]. For example, the reactor in Belarus was built in 8 years[1]. The first reactor at the Akkuyu site in Turkey is going to be built in 6 years [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#United_Arab_Emirates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#Belarus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... [2] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Major-components-in-place-at-Akkuyu-1 https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Major-components...
    - erentz 4y ago
      > Funny article. It talks about time to build nuclear reactors but never mentions Russia. > ... > For example, the reactor in Belarus was built in 8 years[1]. Sorry to break it to you but Belarus is still not russia, yet. If you look again at the article you'll see lots of countries that have nuclear reactors are not specifically mentioned, however in the one section where countries are specifically mentioned a group for all former USSR countries is called out that includes russia and other countries. This will be due to how reactor data was recorded prior to the dissolution of the USSR. Slava Ukraini
      - gdy 4y ago
        Just like UAE isn't South Korea but the reactors there are designed and built by a South Korean company. What's your point? Sorry to break it to you, but the USSR dissolved over 30 years ago.
        erentz 4y ago
        You are confused. The article talks about reactor construction time in countries. E.g. Hinkley Point C is being built in the UK, that means it gets recorded in data about construction in the UK, even though it is designed by a French company, and owned by a French and Chinese company. The same applies for reactors designed by Rosatom and built around the world. A VVER-1200 built in China may be a russian design, but the data is recorded as construction in China for obvious reasons. > Sorry to break it to you, but the USSR dissolved over 30 years ago. Yes, you're the one that was confused why Belarusian projects did not count as russian, and you ignored the Former USSR information in the article. If you would like to know why she aggregated the data that way and didn't break it out into before and after USSR dissolution, you should go and post a comment asking on her Substack.
        gdy 4y ago
        Firstly, it's meaningless -- the construction time depends on who is building, not where. Secondly, it doesn't matter -- reactors in Russia are built by Rosatom just a little slower and still on par with South Korea. I have zero interest in asking her about anything.
bsder 4y ago
That's from start of "building" not "planning". In the US, getting the permits and handling the planning far exceeds the actual construction. In addition, there have only been 7 reactors constructed in North America since 1990 and none from 1995 to 2005. I'm actually a fan of nuclear reactors. However, in the US, we simply don't have the political will to build them.
- erentz 4y ago
  Wind and solar also have many years (and decades) of planning involved. And many also fail to get past the planning phase. > However, in the US, we simply don't have the political will to build them. Fair enough, though this article is about Australia. Here in the US we do have the TVA that is looking to go ahead with new nuclear. But we will likely lag other countries such as Canada (OPG and SaskPower are proceeding with new nuclear builds).

arcticbull 4y ago

Chicken and egg thing. If you listen to the DOE Loan Program head, he says it takes so long and costs so much because each plant is a bespoke hand-crafted special construction project. They can be made much cheaper and much faster if you standardize the design and copy-paste them to where it's a good fit. This isn't an issue inherent to nuclear power at all, but instead in how we approach it. This isn't speculation either, China is building 150 new plants by 2035. [1] > Much like World War I strategies, a solution that nobody has the political will to implement isn't a solution. That's just a tautology. [1] https://thediplomat.com/2022/09/powering-chinas-nuclear-ambitions https://thediplomat.com/2022/09/powering-chinas-nuclear-ambi...

robbiep 4y ago
Again, you’re saying that it’s cheap, but then responding to criticism they’re bespoke by presenting an untested technology that has further lead time delays and may even be vapourwear. You still can’t spin up an industrial base in less than 5-10 years, and there sure as hell isn’t the political will to ask the Chinese to build it for us
- arcticbull 4y ago
  I didn't say it was cheap. I said current nuclear reactor technology is cheaper than a mix of renewables and lithium batteries. They're both quite expensive, and headline renewable 'low costs' exclude storage. But that's ok, I think the fact it's expensive isn't a reason to avoid either of them. I then said that we can also make it significantly cheaper than it is to construct nuclear plants, and offered a path presented by someone very knowledgeable about the space. Jigar Shah from DOE. [1] > ... but then responding to criticism they’re bespoke by presenting an untested technology that has further lead time delays and may even be vapourwear. What untested technology lol, nuclear has been around since 1955. I'm talking about layouts. > You still can’t spin up an industrial base in less than 5-10 years, and there sure as hell isn’t the political will to ask the Chinese to build it for us That's ok just get the Canadians to do it. Check out the CANDU family. [2] And you know all those solar panels are being made in China right? 85% of all panels - 45% of polysilicon comes from Xinjiang. So that's exactly what is being done. [3] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXRmlcsqHtk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXRmlcsqHtk [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor [3] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/china-made-solar-pv-created-imbalanced-global-supply-iea/627021/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/china-made-solar-pv-created...

panick21_ 4y ago

It takes 12-24 years if its a lazy one off with little political support. We also shouldn't measure time for a single plant, but for many. Fact is, France built like 50 in 20 years. And if you look at the UAE, its much more instructive. A country with no experience. Handed out a bid in 2009, first plant active 2020 and then plants going online 2021, 2022, 2023. And if you just keep going like that eventually you can finish 2 or more per year. France was finishing like 5-6 plants a year. If you look at Germany in 2000 for example. Had they done what France did in the 70/80s, Germany would have carbon free right now and they would have spent far less money then the 'Green Revolution' that they are engaged with now (and all the massive cost they will be paying the next 20 years). If you just do the math, based even on the prices that South Korea charged ULA, nuclear would be a no brain. And nobody can tell me Germany wouldn't have the engineering skill to do this.