• JacobCoffinWrites@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    And seven years seems quite optimistic considering how effectively local governments and committees of concerned NIMBYS have been blocking any new nuclear construction for like, my entire lifetime, at least in the US. Apparently nobody wants a nuclear power plant going up near them and they find a lot of creative ways to jam up the works. I’m not sure we have the time to try to ram dozens of nuclear power plants through those folks while the world is burning.

    • YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Definitely. That 7 years was just the construction phase. All in the average nuclear plant takes about 14 years to build from planning to switch on.

      • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Lmao no the fuck it doesn’t. From start to finish the time to build has been set by Japan at 3 years. Stop fucking commenting on shit you don’t even try to learn about.

        • YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            “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 removed 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.