The low success rate of applications has been put down, in part, to an increasingly number of speculative applications being submitted. Industry reports show a rise in so called “phantom projects” in these cases, developers submit multiple applications for many sites, with the expectation being that very few will connect. These speculative and duplicate applications have seen the connections queue grow, increasing the work needed to progress projects.
Seems like this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
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Also, your data is out of date.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:
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?
Great, but unless you can get Japan to build every Nuclear reactor in the world, that's a meaningless statistic, isn't it? The averageconstruction time for a PWR remains 7 years globally:
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:
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:
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:
OK, so whilst we wait the 7 years for the reactor to be built we should, what? hope that coal and gas stops polluting in the interim? Or should we continue to use the tech that, whilst not perfect, is better than the currently most widely used alternatives?
Nuclear is expensive, slow to deploy and has a inherent risk that renewables do not:
Plus the ewaste renewables produce can be recycled easily, cheaply and with far less risk than the waste for nuclear. Is the process perfect? No, so lets concentrate on improving the circular economy around recycling panels, turbines etc. Spend the money and effort on improving the tech that is already proven to be cheaper, more effective and ready now.
This isn't a binary choice. We can do both, whilst we wait for governments to sort out nuclear or fusion. I'd prefer we do what we can to reduce our emissions via renewables now, rather than doing nothing whilst waiting for some potential solution in the future.
