Nuclear Plant Construction Delays

You might want to look up flammanville. They built a new reactor there and that also took 20 years or so and was way over budget.We've built a lot of nuclear in the last century and then largely stopped. A lot of the know how is gone which is what we're paying for now.Also, in France, all those reactors were largely the same leading to economies of scale when building them. Everything we build today is essentially a one of so you don't get to spread that cost over multiple.

Good thing the last generation of nuclear plants is only ten years behind schedule (was supposed to be done in 5 years, now estimate is 15) and 5x over budgethttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

I'm also a proponent of nuclear, but modern nuclear power plants seem to take 15-20 years to construct and typically go 10s of billions of EUR over budget. So one does not simply "build a reactor".. look at Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, Flamanville 3 in France and Hinkley Point C in UK.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)

I'd love to see a source for that number, because you "seeing a calculation" isn't really enough to go by.. The US isn't "one of the few that hasn't built" either -Korea's had moderate success but nobody else outside of China can build the things, which doesn't bode well for what's being built in China.Look at how Flamanville[1] and Hinckley[2] are going..[1] <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/ed

Nuclear power plants take years to build. Even if a plant were approved today, it wouldn't be finished before large scale hydrogen storage either fails or takes hold, at which point it would be an expensive and unnecessary boondoggle.

Something like this. The project started in 2000, construction began in 2005 and should have been completed in 2010. Original cost was 3 billion euro but landed on over 10 billion euro.It is the first nuclear reactor in Europe for 15 years so not much working experience or available sub contractors.Apparently, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia can build at a third of the cost and time of that.If nuclear energy should be considered, much more must be built more continuously.

You might think so but this is the nuclear energy industry - where building a plant typically takes at least a decade (or not-uncommonly 2 decades or more). In fact, this is currently the most modern production reactor design in the world.It's an EPR[1] - a third generation reactor design. But so far it's been plagued by massive cost and schedule overruns and of the two reactors of this design to become operational, Taishan 2[2] has already been taken offline after less than a yea

Nuclear is in an awkward place. All of the proven last gen designs are considered too risky to build new now. But it also seems that the next gen designs are not proven at all in terms of construction timelines or buildability. For example, many next gen US nuclear projects were canceled after continuous schedule and budget overshoots. The completed next gen French reactor in China, for example is showing unexpected behavior and has been temporarily taken offline for review, and other next ge

>it still takes 30 years to build.Objectively false. Average global nuclear power plant construction time is somewhere around 7 years. Some get delayed significantly, some are done in 3 years, but it averages out shorter than you think.For perspective, solar plants are about 2 years to get operational, combined cycle natural gas is around 3.The other thing to keep in mind is that nuclear plants have seen significant upgrades, and continue to over their lifecycles. The US has added 19

In France, the last construction is Flamanville EPR. It is at least 5 times over budget and 15 years latehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl...