5 ms·

> faster than we can build the tech You're arguing for nuclear on the basis of its build speed? That doesn't seem to be born out in reality. Maybe another X* y

> faster than we can build the tech You're arguing for nuclear on the basis of its build speed? That doesn't seem to be born out in reality. Maybe another X* years when we've got cheap, factory built small modular reactors, but that certainly doesn't describe nuclear today. In which case we're back to waiting for new tech. * X being some number of years that increments by 1 year, every year.

Aachen 6y ago
We can hope that all countries will find the space for all the solar panels, wind turbines, have some convenient height differences for hydro power and pumped energy storage, money for li-ion storage for the night or windless days, grid upgrades to get it from where it's produced to where it's needed... or we could apt remove coal_plant && apt install fission_plant on the same surface area and be certain that we'll be done in the 15 years that this takes to build. I'm very much afraid the former isn't going to cut it. I also know solar is cheaper if you compare kWh produced by panels on roofs to kWh produced by nuclear plants, but we need to increase our energy production nearly tenfold and renewables only won't make it easy to get there. We need to continue on both fronts, we can't rule out nuclear if we want to avoid this disaster. Best case the money is wasted. Currently, the best case is that we'll succeed and the average case a disaster.
bluGill 6y ago
Large parts of build speed issue with nuclear is regulation. If we could just get a permit to build done in a reasonable amount of time and then not stop progress again and again it would make a big difference.
- Octoth0rpe 6y ago
  Given the price tag for Fukushima is at $187 billion and rising, arguing for deregulation _should_ be a hard sell. The axiom 'safe, cheap, fast; choose any 2' doesn't even apply to nuclear. It's more like choose 0. You might be able to argue for some version of 'safe' by talking about actual fatalities from nuclear energy being low, but I think the 5000ish square kilometers of exclusion zones from Chrenobyl/Fukushima should be part of the conversation about 'safety'. Safe for people perhaps, safe for property, apparently not. So maybe choose 0.5?
sir_bearington 6y ago
> You're arguing for nuclear on the basis of its build speed? That doesn't seem to be born out in reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media/File:Electricity_in_France.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media...
- bob29 6y ago
  https://apnews.com/article/2fef5c6a978b4fd5a79596020f0bac8a https://apnews.com/article/2fef5c6a978b4fd5a79596020f0bac8a
  - sir_bearington 6y ago
    The plant was fully capable of continuing operation, but they're restricted in how much they can increase the temperature of the river used for cooling. There has been no demonstrated impact of reactor cooling on fish populations, so this is really just the government shutting down the nuclear plant just for the sake of it.
    - bob29 6y ago
      Hmm I wonder if there’s a link between the fish in the river being fine and the regulators preventing the reactor from boiling it in the summer ?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- Octoth0rpe 6y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is by linking to just that graph without context. No one denies that nuclear makes up the majority of France's generating capacity. It's more debatable as to whether or not France is capable of building them out at competitive prices compared to renewables. It's worth looking at the ongoing cost disaster that is Flamanville unit 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... Short version: supposed to be 54 months to build at €3.3 billion, is currently now targeting 180 months of total construction time at €19.1 billion. Not a good look.

Aachen 6y ago

We can hope that all countries will find the space for all the solar panels, wind turbines, have some convenient height differences for hydro power and pumped energy storage, money for li-ion storage for the night or windless days, grid upgrades to get it from where it's produced to where it's needed... or we could apt remove coal_plant && apt install fission_plant on the same surface area and be certain that we'll be done in the 15 years that this takes to build. I'm very much afraid the former isn't going to cut it. I also know solar is cheaper if you compare kWh produced by panels on roofs to kWh produced by nuclear plants, but we need to increase our energy production nearly tenfold and renewables only won't make it easy to get there. We need to continue on both fronts, we can't rule out nuclear if we want to avoid this disaster. Best case the money is wasted. Currently, the best case is that we'll succeed and the average case a disaster.

bluGill 6y ago

Large parts of build speed issue with nuclear is regulation. If we could just get a permit to build done in a reasonable amount of time and then not stop progress again and again it would make a big difference.

Octoth0rpe 6y ago
Given the price tag for Fukushima is at $187 billion and rising, arguing for deregulation _should_ be a hard sell. The axiom 'safe, cheap, fast; choose any 2' doesn't even apply to nuclear. It's more like choose 0. You might be able to argue for some version of 'safe' by talking about actual fatalities from nuclear energy being low, but I think the 5000ish square kilometers of exclusion zones from Chrenobyl/Fukushima should be part of the conversation about 'safety'. Safe for people perhaps, safe for property, apparently not. So maybe choose 0.5?

sir_bearington 6y ago

> You're arguing for nuclear on the basis of its build speed? That doesn't seem to be born out in reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media/File:Electricity_in_France.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media...

bob29 6y ago
https://apnews.com/article/2fef5c6a978b4fd5a79596020f0bac8a https://apnews.com/article/2fef5c6a978b4fd5a79596020f0bac8a
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  The plant was fully capable of continuing operation, but they're restricted in how much they can increase the temperature of the river used for cooling. There has been no demonstrated impact of reactor cooling on fish populations, so this is really just the government shutting down the nuclear plant just for the sake of it.
  - bob29 6y ago
    Hmm I wonder if there’s a link between the fish in the river being fine and the regulators preventing the reactor from boiling it in the summer ?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
Octoth0rpe 6y ago
I'm not sure what your point is by linking to just that graph without context. No one denies that nuclear makes up the majority of France's generating capacity. It's more debatable as to whether or not France is capable of building them out at competitive prices compared to renewables. It's worth looking at the ongoing cost disaster that is Flamanville unit 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... Short version: supposed to be 54 months to build at €3.3 billion, is currently now targeting 180 months of total construction time at €19.1 billion. Not a good look.