5 ms·

I too am pro-nuclear, but isn't it too late for traditional nuclear to save us? We need solutions very quickly and the typical nuclear power plant takes 10 yea

I too am pro-nuclear, but isn't it too late for traditional nuclear to save us? We need solutions very quickly and the typical nuclear power plant takes 10 years to build. In my uneducated opinion, the only way I see nuclear working is if there are small modular reactors that are produced quickly in a factory assembly line.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
Far too late. 10 years to build is optimistic, and that is on top of a good decade or 2 of bureaucracy before even breaking ground.
- manfredo 7y ago
  France managed to bring its nuclear generation from close to 0% to over 75% in 15 years.
  - Maximus9000 7y ago
    Interesting... actually, that is actually fairly compelling evidence that it can be done. Thanks! For anyone interested, citation is here: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/read...
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    In the 1970's, yes. Nowadays it seems to take 10 years to build something as simple as a subway station.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      Technology hasn't regressed. Nuclear plants get built cheaper and faster on a per unit basis when they're built as part of a series of production. France built dozens of copies of the same four reactor designs. By comparison, many new projects are one off or part of only a single digit number of copies.
BurningFrog 7y ago
10 years is s perfectly fine. The idea that there is some tipping point in 2030 that must be avoided at all cost is just an internet rumor.
- ben_w 7y ago
  I would say misunderstanding rather than rumour — the original statement was closer to “Given how long it takes politicians to do things, we have until 2030 to get started on really fixing everything and not just painting things green and mistaking that for action”.
- akuchling 7y ago
  Here's a Twitter thread discussing the significance of the 2030 date: https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/1104833329587806210 https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/1104833329587806210 It's more complicated & nuanced than most blogs or stories have time for, but it's not an Internet rumor.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    Thanks! I don't think she says anything I much disagree with. I think this even restates my point, in less inflammatory language: > and here, my friends, is where the mythical "we have 12 years to fix this or the world ends" narrative comes from. (I'm not pointing my finger at anyone in particular here; I'm just saying I've heard this. A lot.) > Concl'n: Science does not identify a specific goal, target, or timeline. What it says is simply this: the more carbon we produce, the worse the impacts. The best thing to do is wean ourselves off it, as soon as is humanly possible. As a human I'd add: while minimizing suffering.
eb0la 7y ago
I was 100% against nuclear because I fear the risks. But I believe it is a tool we must use. Most nuclear plants have been working 20-40 years. We need new designs for safer, cheaper plants, and a viable storage for nuclear waste.
Gravityloss 7y ago
And ten years later, with little done, this kind of a statement would look really bad in retrospect. We need both fast actions and we also need actions that take ten years or even thirty. Everything helps. I've been participating in climate discussions for multiple decades. The less we do and the later we do, it's going to be worse. But it's still better than not doing anything. Ie there's no point in time, after which it's not worth doing anything.
manfredo 7y ago
Nuclear, slow as it may be to build, is still the fastest option to actually eliminate fossil fuel usage. The other plans involving intermittent sources require immense amounts of energy storage. To put this in perspective, the US consumes ~5TWh of electricity during nighttime. The entire world only produces 300GWh of lithium ion batteries annually [1]. This is expected to increase to 1TWh by 2023 and probably 2TWh by 2030. But still, if we're talking about eliminating fossil fuel usage globally it'd take the better party of a century to build the energy storage required. Other plants for energy storage are either geographically limited (hydroelectric), or have yet to be built at any meaningful scale and have questionable efficiencies (Sabatier process, hydrogen). France's nuclearization program took 20 years [2], but that's a hare's pace compared to building the energy storage required for intermittent sources. 1. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-battery-planned-capacity-update-9-growth-in-a-single-month-march-charts/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-batt... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme...

bryanlarsen 7y ago

Far too late. 10 years to build is optimistic, and that is on top of a good decade or 2 of bureaucracy before even breaking ground.

manfredo 7y ago
France managed to bring its nuclear generation from close to 0% to over 75% in 15 years.
- Maximus9000 7y ago
  Interesting... actually, that is actually fairly compelling evidence that it can be done. Thanks! For anyone interested, citation is here: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/read...
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  In the 1970's, yes. Nowadays it seems to take 10 years to build something as simple as a subway station.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Technology hasn't regressed. Nuclear plants get built cheaper and faster on a per unit basis when they're built as part of a series of production. France built dozens of copies of the same four reactor designs. By comparison, many new projects are one off or part of only a single digit number of copies.

BurningFrog 7y ago

10 years is s perfectly fine. The idea that there is some tipping point in 2030 that must be avoided at all cost is just an internet rumor.

ben_w 7y ago
I would say misunderstanding rather than rumour — the original statement was closer to “Given how long it takes politicians to do things, we have until 2030 to get started on really fixing everything and not just painting things green and mistaking that for action”.
akuchling 7y ago
Here's a Twitter thread discussing the significance of the 2030 date: https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/1104833329587806210 https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/1104833329587806210 It's more complicated & nuanced than most blogs or stories have time for, but it's not an Internet rumor.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Thanks! I don't think she says anything I much disagree with. I think this even restates my point, in less inflammatory language: > and here, my friends, is where the mythical "we have 12 years to fix this or the world ends" narrative comes from. (I'm not pointing my finger at anyone in particular here; I'm just saying I've heard this. A lot.) > Concl'n: Science does not identify a specific goal, target, or timeline. What it says is simply this: the more carbon we produce, the worse the impacts. The best thing to do is wean ourselves off it, as soon as is humanly possible. As a human I'd add: while minimizing suffering.

eb0la 7y ago

I was 100% against nuclear because I fear the risks. But I believe it is a tool we must use. Most nuclear plants have been working 20-40 years. We need new designs for safer, cheaper plants, and a viable storage for nuclear waste.

Gravityloss 7y ago

And ten years later, with little done, this kind of a statement would look really bad in retrospect. We need both fast actions and we also need actions that take ten years or even thirty. Everything helps. I've been participating in climate discussions for multiple decades. The less we do and the later we do, it's going to be worse. But it's still better than not doing anything. Ie there's no point in time, after which it's not worth doing anything.

manfredo 7y ago

Nuclear, slow as it may be to build, is still the fastest option to actually eliminate fossil fuel usage. The other plans involving intermittent sources require immense amounts of energy storage. To put this in perspective, the US consumes ~5TWh of electricity during nighttime. The entire world only produces 300GWh of lithium ion batteries annually [1]. This is expected to increase to 1TWh by 2023 and probably 2TWh by 2030. But still, if we're talking about eliminating fossil fuel usage globally it'd take the better party of a century to build the energy storage required. Other plants for energy storage are either geographically limited (hydroelectric), or have yet to be built at any meaningful scale and have questionable efficiencies (Sabatier process, hydrogen). France's nuclearization program took 20 years [2], but that's a hare's pace compared to building the energy storage required for intermittent sources. 1. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-battery-planned-capacity-update-9-growth-in-a-single-month-march-charts/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-batt... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme...