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...
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).
[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...
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.
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.