Then there's a problem with nuclear fuel. The sources are mostly countries you don't want to depend on.
You are of course right with your assessment that nuclear is green, safe and eco-friendly. That's a hard one to swallow for a lot of eco activists.
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
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl...
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...
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.
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.
https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-fl...
Indeed, and it is so undeniable that it is the official conclusion. Source (French): https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/media/organes-parleme...
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
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...
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.
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.
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!
Note: catastrophic nuclear is still better than best renewables.
In contrast nuclear power is backsliding, and the few projects which get green lit have insanely large subsidies attached.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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."
Arguing in good faith? Not for you! Hope to bury the person you are discussing in a wall of LLM text because you can't deal with reality, that is what you do!
> As of 2024, over 20 reactors are under construction in China, making it the country with the largest number of reactors being built.
And what did I say: China has 4-5 construction starts per year leading to a shrinking share of nuclear power in the electricity mix.
As per Chinese average construction times that leads to in the 20s reactors under construction.
Thanks for the confirmation!
> 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.
I wonder why I was counting construction starts based on authoratative databases?! Thanks again for confirming that China is barely building any nuclear power!
> 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.
Yes. Currently targeting ~2-3% of the electricity mix as per recent construction starts. Insignificiant.
> While the EPR2 nuclear reactor project faces significant financial uncertainties, rising costs, and regulatory hurdles, it is not truly "stuck in financial limbo."
"Not truly stuck", but stuck.
> 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."
You mean the government that just collapsed because they are underwater in debt with a spending problem they are unable to reign in?
They will get around creating insanely bonkers large handouts to the nuclear industry any day now! Lets force a downgrade of their credit rating by another notch or two!
Exactly what is needed!
> The PRIS database lists 63 reactor projects.
Including
- 2 reactors from Ukraine which hasn't moved an inch since the Soviet times.
- 2 reactors in Japan that will get finished any day now!
- 1 reactor on a slowly rolling recently halted project in Argentine. Did I mention that it is 25 MW? A tiny bit bigger than an off-shore wind turbine!
- 1 reactor in Brazil which has on and off been construction since 1984.
That was ~10% of the reactors on that list. Should I continue??????
Also love the dodge. Just ignore all abandoned American and UK reactors in the last 20 years and keep pretending that all announced reactors will magic themselves into existence! Any day now!
As per recent French nuclear construction they are on a path of replacing it with renewables because it is horrifically expensive and they are unable to finance new construction.
Anyway, there is no use discussing with you, as you just repeat the same lies over and over.
Just one example:
> Also love the dodge. Just ignore all abandoned American and UK reactors in the last 20 years
These were never in the list of 63 reactors. So there is no "dodge". You are just lying again.
Bye.
Case in point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45243337
If you keep facing these problems maybe you are the issue?
I also find awesomely lovely that your ChatGPT nonsense confirmed exactly what I said.
> These were never in the list of 63 reactors. So there is no "dodge". You are just lying again.
Lets cite what you said:
> There are currently 60+ reactors under construction, 90+ in preparation and 170+ announced/in planning.
They are en example of what happens with the "90+ in preparation and 170+ announced/in planning" which you attempted to proclaim will just magic into existence any day now.
Just like how all those UK and US reactors magicked into non-existence.
I also do note that you of course ignored the 10% of the "60+ reactors under construction" I gathered some data on.
Just ignore everything that does not confirm your biases? Is that how you roll?
Doesn't sound very engineery.