3 ms·

Nuclear power plants take at most 5 years to build from the time we break ground until the reactor's hooked up to the grid. Look at how fast the Chinese are bui

by avar 8y ago

Nuclear power plants take at most 5 years to build from the time we break ground until the reactor's hooked up to the grid. Look at how fast the Chinese are building them, or how fast e.g. the French or the US were at building them in the 60s and 70s. That it takes so long now in the west is because we're not building enough of them, thus losing the advantage of experienced workforces and inability to leverage mass-manufacturing of standardized designs. It's also slow because of onerous safety regulation seeking to make nuclear too safe, when we consider the result of a slowdown in commissioning of new reactors, thus increasing the reliance on coal killing way more people than if we were to hypothetically mass manufacture relatively unsafe reactor designs from the 60s today.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
>Look at how fast the Chinese are building them, or how fast e.g. the French or the US were at building them in the 60s and 70s. "The country [China] has the capacity to build 10 to 12 nuclear reactors a year. But though reactors begun several years ago are still coming online, the industry has not broken ground on a new plant in China since late 2016, according to a recent World Nuclear Industry Status Report. Officially China still sees nuclear power as a must-have. But unofficially, the technology is on a death watch. Experts, including some with links to the government, see China’s nuclear sector succumbing to the same problems affecting the West: the technology is too expensive, and the public doesn’t want it." https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-... (China’s losing its taste for nuclear power. That’s bad news.) > That it takes so long now in the west is because we're not building enough of them, thus losing the advantage of experienced workforces and inability to leverage mass-manufacturing of standardized designs. Can you provide evidence that the cost of nuclear would be comparable to solar and wind if built at scale? > It's also slow because of onerous safety regulation seeking to make nuclear too safe, when we consider the result of a slowdown in commissioning of new reactors, thus increasing the reliance on coal killing way more people than if we were to hypothetically mass manufacture relatively unsafe reactor designs from the 60s today. I'm unsure you can sell nuclear to the public or politicians as "it's expensive because it's too safe". It's unlikely we're going to relax safety regulations when cheaper alternatives already exist (solar, wind, natural gas, storage). We're not increasing our reliance on coal, we're temporarily increasing our reliance on natural gas (which is driving coal and nuclear out of business). EDIT: "but pointed out that it taking anywhere near 20 years to build a nuclear power plant is clearly off by an order of 4x at the very least." I’d prefer nuclear reactors not be built in the developed world to Chinese standards.
- avar 8y ago
  I made no claims about overall cost, but pointed out that it taking anywhere near 20 years to build a nuclear power plant is clearly off by an order of 4x at the very least.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- avar 8y ago
  In reply to your edit: > I’d prefer nuclear reactors not be built in the developed world to Chinese standards. It's a bit more ambiguous today with solar etc. being much cheaper, but this sort of sentiment has been common over the years, and has doomed millions to an early death due to coal emissions. Obviously it's nobody's serious policy suggestion that we literally dig up a 60s reactor design and mass-manufacture it as-is today. The point is that we've been getting nuclear policy so wrong since then that we'd have been better today off in terms of the trolley problem of harm reduction if we did that, v.s. building the coal plants we've been building instead. Any concerns about the safety of specific power generation methods that don't take into account what the realistic alternatives just amount to intellectual masturbation. It would be like being so concerned about the safety of Ford (nuclear) v.s. Tesla (solar), that you've decided to instead ride a moped (coal) at highway speeds for decades out of some sort of misplaced decision paralysis, because you didn't yet have money for a Tesla.

by avar 8y ago

toomuchtodo 8y ago

>Look at how fast the Chinese are building them, or how fast e.g. the French or the US were at building them in the 60s and 70s. "The country [China] has the capacity to build 10 to 12 nuclear reactors a year. But though reactors begun several years ago are still coming online, the industry has not broken ground on a new plant in China since late 2016, according to a recent World Nuclear Industry Status Report. Officially China still sees nuclear power as a must-have. But unofficially, the technology is on a death watch. Experts, including some with links to the government, see China’s nuclear sector succumbing to the same problems affecting the West: the technology is too expensive, and the public doesn’t want it." https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-... (China’s losing its taste for nuclear power. That’s bad news.) > That it takes so long now in the west is because we're not building enough of them, thus losing the advantage of experienced workforces and inability to leverage mass-manufacturing of standardized designs. Can you provide evidence that the cost of nuclear would be comparable to solar and wind if built at scale? > It's also slow because of onerous safety regulation seeking to make nuclear too safe, when we consider the result of a slowdown in commissioning of new reactors, thus increasing the reliance on coal killing way more people than if we were to hypothetically mass manufacture relatively unsafe reactor designs from the 60s today. I'm unsure you can sell nuclear to the public or politicians as "it's expensive because it's too safe". It's unlikely we're going to relax safety regulations when cheaper alternatives already exist (solar, wind, natural gas, storage). We're not increasing our reliance on coal, we're temporarily increasing our reliance on natural gas (which is driving coal and nuclear out of business). EDIT: "but pointed out that it taking anywhere near 20 years to build a nuclear power plant is clearly off by an order of 4x at the very least." I’d prefer nuclear reactors not be built in the developed world to Chinese standards.

avar 8y ago
I made no claims about overall cost, but pointed out that it taking anywhere near 20 years to build a nuclear power plant is clearly off by an order of 4x at the very least.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
avar 8y ago
In reply to your edit: > I’d prefer nuclear reactors not be built in the developed world to Chinese standards. It's a bit more ambiguous today with solar etc. being much cheaper, but this sort of sentiment has been common over the years, and has doomed millions to an early death due to coal emissions. Obviously it's nobody's serious policy suggestion that we literally dig up a 60s reactor design and mass-manufacture it as-is today. The point is that we've been getting nuclear policy so wrong since then that we'd have been better today off in terms of the trolley problem of harm reduction if we did that, v.s. building the coal plants we've been building instead. Any concerns about the safety of specific power generation methods that don't take into account what the realistic alternatives just amount to intellectual masturbation. It would be like being so concerned about the safety of Ford (nuclear) v.s. Tesla (solar), that you've decided to instead ride a moped (coal) at highway speeds for decades out of some sort of misplaced decision paralysis, because you didn't yet have money for a Tesla.