The difference is that a lithium battery facility can be installed and functional in 12-24 months. A nuclear plant takes 12-24 years.
Much like World War I strategies, a solution that nobody has the political will to implement isn't a solution.
This isn't an issue inherent to nuclear power at all, but instead in how we approach it.
This isn't speculation either, China is building 150 new plants by 2035. [1]
> Much like World War I strategies, a solution that nobody has the political will to implement isn't a solution.
That's just a tautology.
[1] https://thediplomat.com/2022/09/powering-chinas-nuclear-ambi...
I then said that we can also make it significantly cheaper than it is to construct nuclear plants, and offered a path presented by someone very knowledgeable about the space. Jigar Shah from DOE. [1]
> ... but then responding to criticism they’re bespoke by presenting an untested technology that has further lead time delays and may even be vapourwear.
What untested technology lol, nuclear has been around since 1955. I'm talking about layouts.
> You still can’t spin up an industrial base in less than 5-10 years, and there sure as hell isn’t the political will to ask the Chinese to build it for us
That's ok just get the Canadians to do it. Check out the CANDU family. [2] And you know all those solar panels are being made in China right? 85% of all panels - 45% of polysilicon comes from Xinjiang. So that's exactly what is being done. [3]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXRmlcsqHtk
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor
[3] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/china-made-solar-pv-created...
Modern CANDU reactors can be really great. There is some new Thorium/Uranium based fuel that will revolutionize CANDU operations. One of the biggest issues with CANDU is that it high labor cost to change the fuel bundles. Some new fuels will allow the reduction of those operations by like 4x, saving on labor cost.
These things aren't comparable without putting it together as a system.
> A nuclear plant takes 12-24 years.
You're thinking about wild outliers there. It's around 6.5 years median [1].
[1] https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-ti...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...
[2] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Major-components...
Sorry to break it to you but Belarus is still not russia, yet.
If you look again at the article you'll see lots of countries that have nuclear reactors are not specifically mentioned, however in the one section where countries are specifically mentioned a group for all former USSR countries is called out that includes russia and other countries. This will be due to how reactor data was recorded prior to the dissolution of the USSR.
Slava Ukraini
Sorry to break it to you, but the USSR dissolved over 30 years ago.
E.g. Hinkley Point C is being built in the UK, that means it gets recorded in data about construction in the UK, even though it is designed by a French company, and owned by a French and Chinese company.
The same applies for reactors designed by Rosatom and built around the world. A VVER-1200 built in China may be a russian design, but the data is recorded as construction in China for obvious reasons.
> Sorry to break it to you, but the USSR dissolved over 30 years ago.
Yes, you're the one that was confused why Belarusian projects did not count as russian, and you ignored the Former USSR information in the article. If you would like to know why she aggregated the data that way and didn't break it out into before and after USSR dissolution, you should go and post a comment asking on her Substack.
Secondly, it doesn't matter -- reactors in Russia are built by Rosatom just a little slower and still on par with South Korea.
I have zero interest in asking her about anything.
That’s slower than average [1]. Striking, considering how much where you build influences timelines as much as who’s building. (I doubt Minsk subjects Rosatom to community input, labor requirements or environmental reviews.)
[1] https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-ti...
"community input, ... environmental reviews"
It all happens before the start of construction, doesn't it?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...
This is incorrect: Russia builds new nuclear power plants slower than the average plant built by Japan and Korea in the last decades. The slowpokes are Europe and the U.S.
> happens before the start of construction, doesn't it
No. It’s an ongoing process in developed countries. (Including, increasingly, China.)
"the average plant built by Japan"
Japan stopped building reactors after Fukushima disaster. If you cut corners, build a reactor in five years and later it blows up, that's not what you want, isn't it?
"It’s an ongoing process"
What kind of effect does it have on the construction? If none, it's just ongoing show.
In addition, there have only been 7 reactors constructed in North America since 1990 and none from 1995 to 2005.
I'm actually a fan of nuclear reactors. However, in the US, we simply don't have the political will to build them.
> However, in the US, we simply don't have the political will to build them.
Fair enough, though this article is about Australia. Here in the US we do have the TVA that is looking to go ahead with new nuclear. But we will likely lag other countries such as Canada (OPG and SaskPower are proceeding with new nuclear builds).
We also shouldn't measure time for a single plant, but for many.
Fact is, France built like 50 in 20 years. And if you look at the UAE, its much more instructive. A country with no experience.
Handed out a bid in 2009, first plant active 2020 and then plants going online 2021, 2022, 2023. And if you just keep going like that eventually you can finish 2 or more per year. France was finishing like 5-6 plants a year.
If you look at Germany in 2000 for example. Had they done what France did in the 70/80s, Germany would have carbon free right now and they would have spent far less money then the 'Green Revolution' that they are engaged with now (and all the massive cost they will be paying the next 20 years). If you just do the math, based even on the prices that South Korea charged ULA, nuclear would be a no brain. And nobody can tell me Germany wouldn't have the engineering skill to do this.