this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
100 points (99.0% liked)

Green Energy

2282 readers
14 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] YungOnions@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Great, but unless you can get Japan to build every Nuclear reactor in the world, that's a meaningless statistic, isn't it? The average construction time for a PWR remains 7 years globally:

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/42/105/42105221.pdf?r=1&r=1

This doesn't account for planning etc etc so the actual time from pre project to switch on is closer to 11 years, which is admittedly 3 years less than my original figure:

https://www.iaea.org/publications/8759/project-management-in-nuclear-power-plant-construction-guidelines-and-experience

Also the fastest Nuclear power plant construction in the world is currently held by Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Unit 6 NPP at 5.41 years, construction start to commercial operation:

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/020/30020307.pdf

That often quoted 3 years doesn't include inspections, testing etc.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

"a meaningless statistic" goalposts? Gone.

The time to create nuclear plants is far lower than what you quoted, should have been started a decade ago, and we're still sitting here fucking debating whether we should start.

In the most respectful way I can manage, stop bitching about time to build and start now. Encourage the people in charge to do it, now. Stop kicking the can down the road so we can go "damn I guess renewables weren't enough, we should have made those plants a long time ago."

I'm hostile because I'm sick of the same attitude every year. "top expensive, too long, too unsafe" when it makes more power per dollar spent than any other method, is only a few years away even with inspections, and causes less deaths per GW/H including renewables and including the deaths/affected peoples from nuclear disasters.

There is no more room for debate. Nuclear is and has been the option for decades and anyone saying it isn't is just helping coal and oil. Full stop.

[–] YungOnions@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The time to create nuclear plants is far lower than what you quoted

The average construction time is 7 years. I quoted the International Atomic Energy Agency. I think they know what they're talking about.

and we're still sitting here fucking debating whether we should start.

That's fine, I get you're passionate about nuclear and that's good, it's better to be passionate about that than coal or gas. But you're not going to 'encourage' anyone by hurling insults at them, are you?

Also, your data is out of date. The LCOE of Nuclear is getting more expensive, not less. Wind is now the cheapest:

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

And solar now has the fewest deaths per unit of electricity:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh

Look, I get that nuclear probably has its place. But you need to understand that renewables are rapidly becoming the option for carbon emission reduction, and that the evidence supports this. They're doing this so quickly that by the time we start the process of constructing a NPP now, they will be even better by the time the plant goes into operation. Your point about how we should have started earlier is a valid one but, for a multitude of reasons, that isn't the world we live in. So why spend time and money trying to change the global attitude towards nuclear when we can spend the same time and money building an arguably better solution that is almost unanimously agreed to be more effective right now?