Given the high cost and long lead times involved, I’m incredibly dubious about this one actually happening.

  • Sonori@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s worth noting that the high cost and long lead times are mostly just a US thing, many nations can go from inception to fully complete in three to five years. There also isn’t much overlap with the resources needed for cheaper solar and wind. I’m just glad that it’s not more natural gas “bridge” plants.

    • b9chomps@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It’s worth noting that the high cost and long lead times are mostly just a US thing, many nations can go from inception to fully complete in three to five years.

      I was curious about this claim and checked out the IAEA website and just checked random cointries and found several reactors that have been under construction for way longer.

      I have never heard of a power plant or new reactor of an existing plant being build in that time frame. Do you have examples?

      • Sonori@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Offhand Wolseong in Korea brought thier two new reactors online in five and seven years, and have a nationwide average of six years. Qinshan in China brought two new Candean reactors online in four and five years, with a nationwide average of five years aswell.

        As the other commenter mentioned Japan has systemicly built reactors in four years, though Fukushima 2 does well to demonstrate the danger or just running old American designs forever given how much better the modern reactors at the plant did than the older ones.

        https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/42/105/42105221.pdf