3 ms·

> which they delayed during COVID so they could not stick to their typical schedule > the average time to construct a nuclear power plant is around 7.5 years

by lispm 3y ago

> which they delayed during COVID so they could not stick to their typical schedule > the average time to construct a nuclear power plant is around 7.5 years That's dumb. "The average time taken to build 441 reactors operational today was 7.5 years." Most of the reactors operational today are decades old. Check how long it takes to build an airport. 50 years ago and now. You can build faster in China (guess why, you can also build coal powerplants very fast in China, even though the air quality is already shit), but not in Europe and the US. None of the EPRs in Europe are built in-time and/or budget. Exactly the opposite, even though the constructing company sits in France and is state owned.

mpweiher 3y ago
> could not stick to their typical schedule They chose not to stick to their typical schedule, prioritizing COVID instead. > [average construction time of 7.5 years] That's dumb. Only in the universe of reality-denial. In the Real World™ it is accurate. > "The average time taken to build 441 reactors operational today was 7.5 years." Yes. Unlike you, I don't have to look only at the most extreme outliers to make my case. Because my case doesn't need distortion. > Most of the reactors operational today are decades old. Yes, they last a long time. Which is good. Alas, since they built so many so quickly and they then didn't expand further and didn't need to replace the existing ones because they last a long time, they didn't keep the expertise of building alive very well. That was bad. Anyway, if you think that this means construction was only fast in the old days, you would, once a agin, be incorrect. The reactors finished in 2022 were finished in...drumrolll..around 7.5 years. And in fact most of the outliers are in the past. > None of the EPRs ... And once again, you focus on the currently most problematic design, which also happens to be brand new, so at the beginning of its learning curve... > ...in Europe ... ...built in the region that has built hardly any plants or reactors in the last two-three decades. Single examples. However, hop over to Statistia and you will find, again, that the plants finished in 2022 were finished in around 7.5 years. Just like the ones before. https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... And again, those numbers are consistent: "Overall, this picture suggests that nuclear plants don’t take a really long time to build (with a few exceptions). Most are built in 8 to 10 years. Many are built much faster." https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... Are we getting slower? "The data suggests that the world is not getting slower. Times vary a bit from decade to decade but average times are not slower than in the 1970s or 1980s." So no, your singular examples notwithstanding we are not getting slower. Data. Facts. Have a nice day.

by lispm 3y ago

mpweiher 3y ago

> could not stick to their typical schedule They chose not to stick to their typical schedule, prioritizing COVID instead. > [average construction time of 7.5 years] That's dumb. Only in the universe of reality-denial. In the Real World™ it is accurate. > "The average time taken to build 441 reactors operational today was 7.5 years." Yes. Unlike you, I don't have to look only at the most extreme outliers to make my case. Because my case doesn't need distortion. > Most of the reactors operational today are decades old. Yes, they last a long time. Which is good. Alas, since they built so many so quickly and they then didn't expand further and didn't need to replace the existing ones because they last a long time, they didn't keep the expertise of building alive very well. That was bad. Anyway, if you think that this means construction was only fast in the old days, you would, once a agin, be incorrect. The reactors finished in 2022 were finished in...drumrolll..around 7.5 years. And in fact most of the outliers are in the past. > None of the EPRs ... And once again, you focus on the currently most problematic design, which also happens to be brand new, so at the beginning of its learning curve... > ...in Europe ... ...built in the region that has built hardly any plants or reactors in the last two-three decades. Single examples. However, hop over to Statistia and you will find, again, that the plants finished in 2022 were finished in around 7.5 years. Just like the ones before. https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... And again, those numbers are consistent: "Overall, this picture suggests that nuclear plants don’t take a really long time to build (with a few exceptions). Most are built in 8 to 10 years. Many are built much faster." https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... Are we getting slower? "The data suggests that the world is not getting slower. Times vary a bit from decade to decade but average times are not slower than in the 1970s or 1980s." So no, your singular examples notwithstanding we are not getting slower. Data. Facts. Have a nice day.