3 ms·

Time: Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-co

Time: Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... France nuclearized its entire grid in 20 years, from the early 70s to the early 90s. They've been producing largely CO2 free, cheap electricity ever since. Germany has been trying to achieve low carbon electricity for 20 years so far while at the same tine getting out of nuclear (yes, it doesn't make sense). We're supposedly half way done, have the 2nd most expensive electricity in the EU and also the 2nd dirtiest electricity in the EU. The government went to such extremes to hide the costs of the energy crisis on off-budget vehicles that the constitutional court had to step in. Cost: "LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years" even for the "expensive" US Westinghouse AP1000 https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANES.pdf https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANE... Sailed: 22 countries just pledged to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 (yes, that's quite a ways away), including the US, Japan, Ukraine, France, Canada, Poland, South Korea etc. India, China and Russia did not sign, but are also expanding. Apart from representing 5 of the G7, the vast majority of world GDP and also the majority of the population, the list importantly also includes a number of countries that until as recently as two years ago were getting out of nuclear, either significantly or entirely. Poland currently has no nuclear plants and has just ordered 24 small reactors to be installed at 6 sites. etc.

ViewTrick1002 3y ago
> Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. Citing numbers from the 70s does nothing to further your argument. We can take a look at all plants we have attempted to construct in the west the past 20 years. - Virgil C. Summer: Contract: 2008. Cancelled 2017 - Vogtle Contract 2008, first reactor done 2023, second 2024(??) - Watts Bar: Construction start 1972, cancelled 1985. Restarted 2007. Finished 2016. - Flamanville: Construction start 2007. Hopefully finished 2024. - Hinkley Point C: Political decision and construction start 2008. Investment decision 2013. Hopefully done by 2028. - Olkiluoto 3: Construction start 2005. Done 2023 - Hanhikivi: Never passed the phase when they tried to certify a Russian reactor for western safety requirements - NuScale SMR Cancelled before they even started building. 7.5 years is simply a laughable prospect in 2023. > "LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years" even for the "expensive" US Westinghouse AP1000 A 60 year payback time + 15 years construction is 75 years. That is like Stalin, FDR and Churchill at the height of the second world war making investments that only pans out in 2023. In the real world, where you spend your own money, that is called insanity. The risk is huge, and extending the amortization cost like that is simply bad math. You should understand the Time Value of Money and suggesting such amortization times are simply nonsensical. Understanding the Time Value of Money: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp But this is typical nukebro accounting. Finding the lowest possible number in the face of reality and then with the blindfold on repeating it hoping that we can subsidize nuclear enough to make it happen one more time. Just skip seeing the subsidies.
- adrianN 3y ago
  Note that your parent uses time from first concrete poured to grid connection as „construction time“, which is naturally much shorter than what you cite.
  - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
    Right... if you skip building a power plant for your reactor then it is "faster". Personally the only number I find interesting is the time from investment decision to in service. Everything else is simply done to muddle the picture because the numbers would get pushback.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  You need to read the actual article: construction times have not gotten longer. No matter how much you cherry-pick examples. As confirmed by the data from Statistia: plants completed in 2022 were completed in, drumroll, 7.5 years.
  - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
    I love how all nuclear construction in the west the past 20 years is "cherry picked". Your bias in trying to frame nuclear in a positive light is simply astounding.
    - mpweiher 3y ago
      You are citing individual examples that you hand-picked. I am citing the stats that average over all of this.

ViewTrick1002 3y ago

> Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. Citing numbers from the 70s does nothing to further your argument. We can take a look at all plants we have attempted to construct in the west the past 20 years. - Virgil C. Summer: Contract: 2008. Cancelled 2017 - Vogtle Contract 2008, first reactor done 2023, second 2024(??) - Watts Bar: Construction start 1972, cancelled 1985. Restarted 2007. Finished 2016. - Flamanville: Construction start 2007. Hopefully finished 2024. - Hinkley Point C: Political decision and construction start 2008. Investment decision 2013. Hopefully done by 2028. - Olkiluoto 3: Construction start 2005. Done 2023 - Hanhikivi: Never passed the phase when they tried to certify a Russian reactor for western safety requirements - NuScale SMR Cancelled before they even started building. 7.5 years is simply a laughable prospect in 2023. > "LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years" even for the "expensive" US Westinghouse AP1000 A 60 year payback time + 15 years construction is 75 years. That is like Stalin, FDR and Churchill at the height of the second world war making investments that only pans out in 2023. In the real world, where you spend your own money, that is called insanity. The risk is huge, and extending the amortization cost like that is simply bad math. You should understand the Time Value of Money and suggesting such amortization times are simply nonsensical. Understanding the Time Value of Money: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp But this is typical nukebro accounting. Finding the lowest possible number in the face of reality and then with the blindfold on repeating it hoping that we can subsidize nuclear enough to make it happen one more time. Just skip seeing the subsidies.

adrianN 3y ago
Note that your parent uses time from first concrete poured to grid connection as „construction time“, which is naturally much shorter than what you cite.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  Right... if you skip building a power plant for your reactor then it is "faster". Personally the only number I find interesting is the time from investment decision to in service. Everything else is simply done to muddle the picture because the numbers would get pushback.
mpweiher 3y ago
You need to read the actual article: construction times have not gotten longer. No matter how much you cherry-pick examples. As confirmed by the data from Statistia: plants completed in 2022 were completed in, drumroll, 7.5 years.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  I love how all nuclear construction in the west the past 20 years is "cherry picked". Your bias in trying to frame nuclear in a positive light is simply astounding.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    You are citing individual examples that you hand-picked. I am citing the stats that average over all of this.