Long build times are often the result of constantly changing regulations. Also it’s interesting that build times in Japan are almost 2 times smaller than in US.

▲

rootsofallevil 3 days ago | parent [-]

Nuclear doesn't have a great record in other countries either. I might have the wrong figures but Hinkley Points C is over 2 times over budget and likely to be 5+ years late.

The exemption being France and maybe China?

France did a programme of nuclear power stations rather than the 1 or 2 offs that seem to be the norm elsewhere and that seems to have worked pretty well.

I'd be surprised if HPC is competitive with solar + wind + BESS when it comes online but I could well be wrong

▲

mpweiher 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

No, the exceptions are builds like HPC.

The average build time is currently 6.5 years. The median is lower at 5.8. The variations across both time and space of those average are neither large nor particularly systematic.

There have always been outliers, so if you focus on those you can "prove" anything you like.

https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi...

	▲	ViewTrick1002 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Which for western construction creates a dataset weighted around ~1980. Not sure why that is relevant half a century later? Instead taking the average of all modern western construction and we get close to 15 years. With the recent insanely subsidies european projects being proposed even the initial timeline calls for a ~10 years build time. Assuming everything goes to plan.

▲

tatref 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In France, the last construction is Flamanville EPR. It is at least 5 times over budget and 15 years late

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl...

▲

tuetuopay 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

We’ve had our share of anti-nuclear activists in France. The project got endlessly stalled, with shifting legislative grounds, and general opposition. Also, the general inefficiency and incompetence from Areva meant this was a match made in heaven (or hell, depends) to get nearly infinite delay.

▲

pfdietz 3 days ago | parent [-]

Flamanville 3 failed because of screwups in the design and construction. What you're blaming the opposition for is exposing that and holding the nuclear people responsible. How dare they, right? /s

	▲	natmaka 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Flamanville 3 failed because of screwups in the design and construction Indeed, and it is so undeniable that it is the official conclusion. Source (French): https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/media/organes-parleme...

▲

natmaka 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At least 5 times, indeed: it was due to cost 3.3 billion euros, its cost to date is 23.7, it it not running at full power and a major update (reactor cover) is already planned.

https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-fl...

▲

mpweiher 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

And even that absolutely catastrophic nuclear construction project has a better ROI than any German intermittent renewables. After almost 25 years of renewable subsidies.

Note: catastrophic nuclear is still better than best renewables.

▲

ViewTrick1002 a day ago | parent [-]

Source please. That truly does not make sense given that renewable subsidies are being phased out around the world and renewables are the fastest growing energy source in human history.

In contrast nuclear power is backsliding, and the few projects which get green lit have insanely large subsidies attached.

▲

mpweiher a day ago | parent [-]

> That truly does not make sense

Reality doesn't have to make sense to you.

> renewable subsidies are being phased out around the world

Nope. Countries are trying to phase out renewables subsidies. And failing. Recently, the UK, Denmark and Germany have had offshore-wind sales with exactly zero bids.

> fastest growing energy source in human history.

People love those delicious subsidies.

> In contrast nuclear power is backsliding

Nope.

> and the few projects which get green lit have insanely large subsidies attached.

Only in markets that have been thoroughly distorted by subsidies and other preferential treatment for intermittent renewables.

▲

ViewTrick1002 a day ago | parent [-]

Let’s begin with concluding that you could not find a source for your claims. Instead you go on a tangent hoping to muddy the water.

I find it interesting how someone so smart can just lie through their teeth.

Now you’re trying to paint the entire renewable industry, solar, storage, onshore wind etc. with the paint brush of off-shore wind.

The German and Danish auctions were negative bid auctions.

To explain what that means: companies were asked to pay for the privilege to build off shore wind at a set very low CFD. Those delicious subsidies right?!? Might even call them negative subsidies!

Given recent interest rate hikes and increased cost for construction materials off shore wind is right on the cusp of viability.

Other projects like this one in Germany moves forward without any subsidies.

https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/pressreleases/2...

What you of course don’t mention is that the recent interest rate hikes and increases in construction costs impacts nuclear power far more than off-shore wind and other renewables.

So someone actually knowledgeable in the topic would not promote nuclear power as the alternative.

So again. Please stop lying and misrepresenting cherry picked stats. You know better.

▲

mpweiher a day ago | parent [-]

> Let’s begin with concluding that you could not find a source for your claims.

The source is the report by the French Cour des Comptes. I am not your research assistant.

> I find it interesting how someone so smart can just lie through their teeth.

I find it interesting that you have no arguments left and have to resort to ad-hominem attacks.

And thank you for confirming my point:

>off shore wind is right on the cusp of viability.

Meaning the very best off-shore wind projects may or may not be profitable. We don't know yet.

Whereas the worst French nuclear project in recent history (FV3) is predicted by the Cour des Comptes to have "modest" profitability in the worst case scenarios.

So once again: worst nuclear >> best intermittent renewable.

QED.

▲

ViewTrick1002 a day ago | parent [-]

The report with a discount rate lower than the inflation and a 40 year pay back time.

For anyone even having a slight economic understanding the writers of that report are shouting from the top of their lungs that investing in nuclear power is pure lunacy.

But shrouded in a language allowing lobbyists and blindingly biased people to cite it.

Any understanding of economy and shilling for nuclear power seems to be a very disjoint set given what we are seeing in this thread.

▲

mpweiher 21 hours ago | parent [-]

"Interesting" unsubstantiated opinions.

And counterfactual, as nuclear is immensely profitable and the world is investing in nuclear.

▲

ViewTrick1002 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Here’s the source Cour des Comptes report validating that you are incorrect.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45243337

The world also very much is not investing in nuclear power given how it is backsliding as a % of the global energy mix with a huge number of closures looming in the close future with no replacements in sight.

Given this answer I don’t know if you are either trolling or have serious problems with delusions.

I dislike drawing conclusions so I will end this conversion with a question:

If you are not trolling, have you tried seeking help from the mental healthcare system?

▲

mpweiher 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Sorry, you are still incorrect.

Nuclear had a record production year in 2024, despite the German exit.

2025 is predicted to be another record year.

There are currently 60+ reactors under construction, 90+ in preparation and 170+ announced/in planning.

The future is nuclear.

▲

ViewTrick1002 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Please. Do tell me where I am incorrect. You just keep making unsubstantiated claims about me being "incorrect" and when we go to the sources they contradict you.

Or you are explicitly going on tangents attempting to muddy the water. Nuclear power having a record year in 2025 and me claiming:

> The world also very much is not investing in nuclear power given how it is backsliding as a % of the global energy mix with a huge number of closures looming in the close future with no replacements in sight.

Are both correct statements. I even acknowledge that we have a lot of existing infrastructure while commmenting on the trend line.

That 60+ reactors number also includes several abandoned projects. In 2024 the world managed to complete 6 reactors. So far the number in 2025 is a 1 reactor.

Of course ignoring that this is a debate focused on the west with western construction costs. In which the nuclear construction rate far under the replacement rate.

But you can't deal with reality. When it came to the future you went straight into hypotheticals not backed by firm deals hoping no one noticed.

This is not a sane behaviour, nor commenting in good faith.

Nuclear projects are easy to announce. Maybe we can ask these reactors how it went getting a final investment decision:

France:

EPR2 project, do I need to say more? Stuck in financial limbo due to the insanely large subsidies needed to get it off the ground with a government that just collapsed due to being underwater in debt while having a spending problem and being unable to reign it in.

UK:

- Sizewell C - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizewell_nuclear_power_stati...)

- Wylfa-Newydd - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylfa_Newydd_nuclear_power_sta...

- Oldbury B - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldbury_nuclear_power_station#...

- Bradwell B - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_B_nuclear_power_stati...

- Moorside - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorside_nuclear_power_station

US:

- Bellefonte - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellefonte_Nuclear_Plant#Units...

- Bell bend - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Bend_Nuclear_Power_Plant

- Callaway - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callaway_Nuclear_Generating_St...

- Calvert Cliffs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs_Nuclear_Power_P...

- Comance Peak - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Pl...

- Galena - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant

- Grand Gulf - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Gulf_Nuclear_Station#Uni...

- Levy County - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy_County_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

- Nine Mile Point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Mile_Point_Nuclear_Genera...

- River Bend - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Bend_Nuclear_Generating_...

- Shearon Harris - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shearon_Harris_Nuclear_Power_P...

- South Texas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Texas_Nuclear_Generating...

- Victoria County - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_County_Station

- Virgil C. Summer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Gener...

China:

Keeps announcing reactors without starting to build them. China also recently revamped the financing side removing the previous CFD are instead forcing the reactors to compete on market terms which is slowing down investment.

China averages ~4-5 construction starts per year which cumulatively leads to nuclear power shrinking as a part of the electricity mix.

	▲	mpweiher 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry, I have no time to debunk all the disinformation you put out. > China: Keeps announcing reactors without starting to build them. I asked ChatGPT: Is it true that China keeps announcing nuclear reactors without building any? ChatGPT said: No, it's not true that China keeps announcing nuclear reactors without building any. In fact, China is one of the most active countries in the world in building nuclear power plants. Here's what the facts show (as of 2024–2025): China is actively building nuclear reactors As of 2024, over 20 reactors are under construction in China, making it the country with the largest number of reactors being built. Many more are in various stages of planning and permitting. China has over 50 reactors in operation already and continues to expand its fleet aggressively. China’s typical process China often announces long-term nuclear energy plans as part of its five-year plans or carbon neutrality goals (aiming for carbon neutrality by 2060). Not all announcements lead to immediate construction — some projects are proposed or approved but not yet started, due to: Regulatory approval processes Site selection Financing and technology partnerships Local opposition or environmental reviews Examples of real construction and completion The Hualong One (HPR-1000), a Chinese-designed Gen-III reactor, has been built and connected to the grid in multiple locations, including: Fuqing-5 and Fuqing-6 Karachi-2 and Karachi-3 in Pakistan (exported models) China is also investing in SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) and fast breeder reactors, including: The Shidao Bay HTGR (high-temperature gas-cooled reactor), which reached criticality. The CFR-600 fast reactor, under construction. Why might people think China is only announcing? Some reasons for the misunderstanding: Media headlines often report announcements, but follow-up coverage of construction or completion is rare unless it's a major milestone. Some proposed projects take years to move forward, so people may assume they’re stalled. There is general skepticism toward state announcements in some international media. Conclusion: China is not just announcing nuclear reactors — it is actively building and commissioning them at a faster rate than almost any other country. While not every announcement leads to immediate construction, a large percentage do eventually get built. ---- > That 60+ reactors number also includes several abandoned projects. The PRIS database lists 63 reactor projects. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/UnderConstruction... How many of those do you consider "abandoned"? Is it a significant number? ---- Financial Limbo. Once again, I asked ChatGPT: "Is the EPR2 project stuck in financial limbo? Not exactly. While the EPR2 nuclear reactor project faces significant financial uncertainties, rising costs, and regulatory hurdles, it is not truly "stuck in financial limbo." The project is currently in a prolonged but fairly typical preparatory phase for large-scale infrastructure, where securing financing, approvals, and detailed planning takes time. These challenges are common in complex, capital-intensive projects—nuclear or otherwise—and reflect the cautious and deliberate approach needed before construction can begin. The French government and EDF remain engaged, with key decisions and financing strategies expected soon, indicating the project is still moving forward, albeit slowly and with some risks."

▲

Nursie 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It won’t be competitive with anything.

But that’s OK, Theresa May signed a guarantee that they’d get paid an uncompetitive price by the taxpayer, regardless.

	▲	ZeroGravitas 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		But that expensive guaranteed price still wasn't enough to cover the actual costs and the EdF CFO resigned in protest. Once that became too obvious to deny, after the French government had renationalised EdF, they were begging the UK government to give them more money, possibly buried in the contract for the second plant build. For that build they stopped using CFD, a financial instrument designed for nuclear but which has massively helped renewables, be ause it couldn't hide the nuclear cost overruns. They're now charging electricity users in advance for the nuclear they are going to build with no guarantee of eventual costs.

▲

looofooo0 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

South Korean company build a NPP in 7 years in Saudi Arabia.

▲

mpweiher 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

United Arab Emirates.

Fastest build times are Japan with under 4 years.

Germany built its Konvois in just shy of 6 years.

Just before we stopped building altogether.

France built 50+ reactors in 15 years.

We know how to build nuclear quickly, reliably and (relatively) cheaply. We also know how to do it slowly, eratically and expensively.

Fortunately the former comes almost but not entirely automatically with building lots of them.

▲

natmaka 3 days ago | parent [-]

During the past 25 years there were projects aiming at building industrial nuclear reactors. They all ended badly (canceled, way over budget or delay...).

▲

mpweiher 2 days ago | parent [-]

That's completely false.

The Konvois in Germany were extremely successful.

France built 50+ reactors in 15 years from a standing start.

▲

natmaka 2 days ago | parent [-]

I wrote "During the past 25 years"

Please describe any nuclear reactor which was successfully built in France or Germany during the past 25 years.

France: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...

▲

mpweiher 2 days ago | parent [-]

Germany didn't build any.

France built hardly any.

And that's the complete answer: we know how to build nuclear reactors quickly and cheaply.

Building only very few of different novel designs while slowly (or quickly) losing the industrial base to do so, for example by making it illegal to build more (or at all) is exactly how you don't do it.

	▲	ViewTrick1002 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The EPR2 program is in absolute shambles. Currently they can’t even agree on how to fund the absolutely insanely bonkers subsidies. Now targeting investment decision in H2 2026… And the French government just fell because they are underwater in debt and have a spending problem which they can’t agree on how to fix. A massive handout to the dead end nuclear industry sounds like the perfect solution! But nuclear is fast to build, if we ignore all modern western examples!

▲

natmaka 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> South Korean company build a NPP in 7 years in Saudi Arabia.

Barakah (delivered March 2024) was late (by about 3 years?), undersold (KEPCO hadn't any other ongoing project and the Korean government at the time wanted a nuclear phase-out) and various tricks are now known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_scandal