[Slow], Expensive and Amazing - Nuclear Power [1/3]
Ever wondered how long it takes to build a nuclear power plant?
Summary - The conventional one gigawatt nuclear power plant takes almost 15 years to build if you are not from a major nuclear state*. The fastest builders (historically) are the Japanese, for which it takes only 5 years. Asian states - or contractors - are generally faster builders compared to the West and Russia, except for France. Learn more about the differences and reasons why in this blog, part one of a three-part series on the not-so-discussed aspects of nuclear power.
Do you know better? Let us know in the comments and we can learn together!
The nuclear elephant in the room
Or should we say, nuclear tortoise
There are two types of people in this world. Those who love nuclear power, and those who hate it. Apparently, that’s the world we live in and you, dear reader, are one of them.
No matter what kind of person you are with regards to your opinion about nuclear energy - we will give you both ammo both for and against the use of nuclear power in this three-part series. Because let’s face it, we have all heard the usual arguments by now, right?
We have all heard about the wonders, dangers and waste side of nuclear. We have seen te fights between those who are in favor and those who are against. We don’t do that here at Mr. Sustainability. We try to learn and listen, together. And ask questions no one has asked before.
So, when you are rehashing the same arguments at your next cocktail party - the merits and dangers of nuclear power - you can now discuss different arguments, starting with one you have probably never heard before.
How long does it actually take to build a nuclear power plant? And our apologies to the lovers beforehand, because this first part is in favour of the haters.
Lately a renewed interested innuclear energy is sparked in the battle against climate chaos, mainly due to nuclear power’s low carbon footprint. The debate is still raging however, and rightfully so. Black Swan events are numerous in the nuclear industry, as Chernobyl and Fukushima are etched in our cultural awareness. In addition, most nuclear power plants that have been built to this date were designed with a singular purpose in mind - to make atomic bombs. At Mr. Sustainability, we are focusing on other aspects of nuclear power. We do not ask ourselves the question if we should make use of nuclear power, but how we should use this weapon in the fight against climate chaos.
How long does it take to build a nuclear power plant?
A graphical overview of major nuclear states vs. the world*
A stunning overview on the construction of nuclear power plants is provided in a tweet by Grant Chalmers, who refers to IEA as a source. It shows the construction of nuclear reactors to date, from first concrete to grid connection, ordered by first concrete date. The y-axis represents reactors (which are too many to label) so only those that took longer than 5,000 days are labelled (almost 14 years).
It turns out that Japan, South Korea and China build nuclear power plants the fastest. France is close on their tail, but the U.S. and Canada are much farther behind. They require up to 3.5 days to build each megawatt, almost 75% longer. Russia comes in last among the major nuclear states, just after Canada. Any country who is not in this nuclear power club are the real suckers.
These countries require more than 5 days per megawatt, which results in roughly 15 years for a one gigawatt nuclear power plant as mentioned earlier. In other words, Japan, South Korea and China are fast. France, Canada, the U.S. and Russia are slower. Everyone else is really slow.
What does this mean?
15 years is a long time. If we take a look at the Paris agreement, we should have reduced our emissions by 55% within ten years (!), so conventional nuclear power would not really be an option within that timeline. Does this mean that the suckers (countries not part of the nuclear power club) should not embark on this adventure? Or, should you ask Japan or South Korea to build your nuclear power plant?
I guess that all depends on whether you are a lover or a hater.
As a lover, you might think - “wait a minute. This is just one source, one tweet from a guy who has access to the Nucleus - the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Power Reactor Information System. Can we trust this? What do others say?”
Sorry haters. It seems a lot of other reputable sources - including nuclear energy agencies - confirm the long construction time of nuclear power plants.
What this overview does not give us, is permitting time or the safety aspects required when building a nuclear reactor. Some time ago, I read that safety standards in the West are much higher, giving rise to a longer time to build power plants. Still, France seems to be doing well and is close to what the quickest contractors seem to manage. Is it simply the fact that the more power plants you build, the better you become? It also seems that generation III plants built from (roughly) the year 2000 onwards are faster to realize.
What do others say?
Reuters, World Nuclear Association and Warren Buffet
Reuters comes to the same conclusion, being that nuclear power is snail power. In this article, in which they refer to the 2019 World Nuclear Industry Status Report, Reuters states that nuclear power is losing ground to renewables in terms of cost, capacity and speed. Reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to reverse carbon emissions.
“Stabilizing the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow. To protect the climate, we must abate the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time,” said Mycle Schneider, lead author of the report.
Reuters concludes that the average construction time for reactors worldwide was just under 10 years, well above the estimate given by industry body the World Nuclear Association (WNA) of between 5 and 8.5 years. This number seems to concur with the worldwide average of three days per megawatt and thus includes the major nuclear states. It does not seem to mind the extreme volatile nature of construction times. Neither do the lovers. on the contrary.
Some lovers are willing to invest billions, even when they are probably not around to see their plant be completed! Who is this, you ask? The business tycoons of the 20th century.
The lovers are gonna love this. According to Business Insider, Warren Buffet joined forces with Bill Gates and will invest $1 billion to build a nuclear power plant in Wyoming. They however have a key differentiator compared to others: they are planning to build a molten-salt reactor (generation IV reactors I believe, let me know in the comments if you know more).
These types of reactors are not the conventional power plants that we have built so far. This development is something that is explored in parts II and III of our series and is definitely in favour of the lovers. Before we dive into that however, let’s take a step back and ask ourselves a more important question first.
How does nuclear power compare to wind and solar?
Before we make accusations about the snail-like properties of conventional nuclear power, let’s check the construction speed of other ‘renewable’ sources of energy.
The plant these guys - or actually their companies - are building will consist of a sodium reactor and tanks of molten salt to store energy. “We believe the sodium nuclear reactor will be a breakthrough for the energy sector,” Bill Gates claimed. It remains to be seen if the $1 billion investment will prove to be lucrative or whether they will experience budget overruns like that of Hinkley Point which sees regular cost overruns in the billions (a regular occurrence in large infrastructure projects). More on that in the next part of this blog series.
How does nuclear compare with solar and wind?
Solar and wind are up to 10 times faster, potentially 500 times faster
In the 2019 World Nuclear Industry Status Report, Mycle Schneider also stated that “nuclear power meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.” He seems to be hitting a snare there.
In 2019, new wind and solar generators generating capacity grew faster than any other power type. Only 2.4 GW of nuclear power came online, compared to 98 GW of solar and 59.2 GW of wind. There are big regional differences however.
China, still the world’s most aggressive nuclear builder, has added nearly 40 reactors to its grid over the last decade, but its nuclear output was still a third lower than its wind generation. Although several new nuclear plants are under construction, no new project has started in China since 2016. In fact, they are doubling down on wind and solar.
China recently announced the biggest solar and wind farm ever - a whopping 400 gigawatts - of which half is to be completed by 2025. The project is still shrouded in mystery, but it would add renewable power to the grid at a rate roughly 50 times faster than nuclear energy.
This however is but a single example. What we really want to do, is the same as what Grant Chalmers did. List all the major projects on a timeline and track their construction progress from first panel to first electricity, so to speak. We are working on that at the moment, as can be seen below. You can help us out in the comments by forwarding us to a good source or database!
In order to compare the speed of wind and solar with nuclear, we need an extensive database on solar and wind projects to create the same gantt chart as Grant Chalmers did. All we have now is anecdotal evidence. Let us know if you have access to a database we can use!
The need for speed
There are other, perhaps more important things
I believe it is fair to say that conventional nuclear power is not an option in the battle against climate chaos, based purely on the fact that it is too slow. Though this might be a strong argument for the haters, there is plenty to say for the lovers as well.
For instance, conventional nuclear power might have historically taken a long time to build - especially in the non-French speaking West - construction times are speeding up. And new types of nuclear power plants might be orders of magnitude faster to build because they are - allegedly - orders of magnitudes safer. Besides, there is another point the lovers can come up with.
Lovers might claim “so what. Who cares if it takes a long time to build a nuclear power plant? It is clean and provides stable, year-round power.” Ok. Let’s say - for argument sake - that might be true. The next question would then be: how much would it cost? What if nuclear energy is ‘much better’ from a technical standpoint, but it is simply too expensive?
This you can find out in part two of our three part series in nuclear energy in which we take a deep dive into the costs of nuclear energy.
> Personal Note
I do not have a degree in nuclear physics, despite my long-life interest in the subject as demonstrated by my 6th grade study on nuclear energy. That’s right, as a ten year old boy I was scouring the internet at my neighbour's (we did not have 'the internet' back then, these were the dial-up days). I wanted to know to build an atomic bomb. I guess the interest in nuclear energy is something that I carried with me my entire live, which may be a reason why I became an engineer. And we engineers are a funny bunch.
As an engineer, with a lot of engineering friends, I am surrounded by nuclear lovers. Virtually every scientists or engineer I know favours the use of nuclear power. It is almost as if it were a badge of honour, or a way to distinguish our engineering tribe. Why is this?
Could it be that scientists and engineers generally have a better understanding of such complex systems, or that they know more about the invisible danger that is radiation? Probably not, because then we would not have had a Chernobyl or Fukushima. What then, is the appeal of nuclear power to engineers?
That, as well as my personal opinion of nuclear power, is something you can find out by reading through these entire blog series, in which I will tell you whether I am a hater or a lover. Until then, you can decide for yourself what I am.