4 ms·
That is good, but of course we also need the clean electrical energy generation to power it, and it likely uses much more power than a non clean plant of the sa
by AngryData 6y ago
That is good, but of course we also need the clean electrical energy generation to power it, and it likely uses much more power than a non clean plant of the same size/production. We need nuclear plants going up now. As cool as solar and wind is, I don't think we can build enough of it fast enough to undo the damage we have done and prevent large scale climate catastrophes.
- epistasis 6y agoYou have our build capabilities exactly reversed. Wind and solar are fast, reliably deployed, and cheaper than any fuel based energy source. In the US alone, the pipeline has 174GW planned for deployment through 2024, however we will deploy far more than that because planning and deployment takes far less than 5 years for renewables: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/us-renewable-pipeline-poised-to-add-172-5-gw-through-2024-61902543 https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights... In contrast we have only 2 reactors, 2.2GW of nuclear under construction, they are more than 2x behind schedule, 3x over budget. There were an additional 2 reactors started at the same time with the same design, but they were abandoned due to construction difficulties and budget overruns. We cant build nuclear in any sort of effective way. Wind and solar get deployed all the time, are always on time and always on budget. They are our only hope for decarbonizing our grid, nuclear offers us zero help.
- gibolt 6y agoDo you actually think nuclear can be built faster than solar + wind? Most new 2020 generation was renewable, at least in the western world
- pjc50 6y agoIt takes roughly 15-20 years to build a nuclear plant, looking at Hinkley Point C. In that time you could have half the lifespan of a set of solar panels. Nuclear cannot be build fast enough to deal with climate change. We need renewables until then.
- 08-15 6y agoWow, I had no idea! I was under the mistaken impression that France managed to build 57 reactors, which produce about 50GW, in 23 years, and the first of those took only 7 years to build. There's even a rumor that some were built in only 5 years. Good thing you taught me that nuclear power cannot possibly be built that fast, or I would have died believing that crazy conspiracy theory!
- pjc50 6y agoHinckley C is being built by the same organization, EDF, that runs the French reactors. Would you like to go over there and ask them why they're taking so long?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 08-15 6y agoSo what? The fact, historically attested, is that an NPP of 900GW can be built in 4-5 years, using 1970s technology. Do you dispute that?