Comment by freetonik

5 months ago

Long build times are often the result of constantly changing regulations. Also it’s interesting that build times in Japan are almost 2 times smaller than in US.

35 comments

freetonik

Reply
rootsofallevil  5 months ago

Nuclear doesn't have a great record in other countries either. I might have the wrong figures but Hinkley Points C is over 2 times over budget and likely to be 5+ years late.

The exemption being France and maybe China?

France did a programme of nuclear power stations rather than the 1 or 2 offs that seem to be the norm elsewhere and that seems to have worked pretty well.

I'd be surprised if HPC is competitive with solar + wind + BESS when it comes online but I could well be wrong

  • mpweiher  5 months ago

    No, the exceptions are builds like HPC.

    The average build time is currently 6.5 years. The median is lower at 5.8. The variations across both time and space of those average are neither large nor particularly systematic.

    There have always been outliers, so if you focus on those you can "prove" anything you like.

    https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi...

    • ViewTrick1002  5 months ago

      Which for western construction creates a dataset weighted around ~1980. Not sure why that is relevant half a century later?

      Instead taking the average of all modern western construction and we get close to 15 years.

      With the recent insanely subsidies european projects being proposed even the initial timeline calls for a ~10 years build time. Assuming everything goes to plan.

  • tatref  5 months ago

    In France, the last construction is Flamanville EPR. It is at least 5 times over budget and 15 years late

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl...

    • tuetuopay  5 months ago

      We’ve had our share of anti-nuclear activists in France. The project got endlessly stalled, with shifting legislative grounds, and general opposition. Also, the general inefficiency and incompetence from Areva meant this was a match made in heaven (or hell, depends) to get nearly infinite delay.

      2 replies →

    • mpweiher  5 months ago

      And even that absolutely catastrophic nuclear construction project has a better ROI than any German intermittent renewables. After almost 25 years of renewable subsidies.

      Note: catastrophic nuclear is still better than best renewables.

      13 replies →

  • Nursie  5 months ago

    It won’t be competitive with anything.

    But that’s OK, Theresa May signed a guarantee that they’d get paid an uncompetitive price by the taxpayer, regardless.

    • ZeroGravitas  5 months ago

      But that expensive guaranteed price still wasn't enough to cover the actual costs and the EdF CFO resigned in protest.

      Once that became too obvious to deny, after the French government had renationalised EdF, they were begging the UK government to give them more money, possibly buried in the contract for the second plant build.

      For that build they stopped using CFD, a financial instrument designed for nuclear but which has massively helped renewables, be ause it couldn't hide the nuclear cost overruns. They're now charging electricity users in advance for the nuclear they are going to build with no guarantee of eventual costs.

  • looofooo0  5 months ago

    South Korean company build a NPP in 7 years in Saudi Arabia.

    • mpweiher  5 months ago

      United Arab Emirates.

      Fastest build times are Japan with under 4 years.

      Germany built its Konvois in just shy of 6 years.

      Just before we stopped building altogether.

      France built 50+ reactors in 15 years.

      We know how to build nuclear quickly, reliably and (relatively) cheaply. We also know how to do it slowly, eratically and expensively.

      Fortunately the former comes almost but not entirely automatically with building lots of them.

      8 replies →