4 ms·

> Or nuclear. Sad that this isn’t seen as an option any longer. Maybe this statement is just a reflection of what can be done in a reasonable amount of time (a

by cure 5y ago

> Or nuclear. Sad that this isn’t seen as an option any longer. Maybe this statement is just a reflection of what can be done in a reasonable amount of time (a few years)? Planning and building nuclear plants takes an order of magnitude longer, it seems.

tehsauce 5y ago
realistically building batteries or thermal storage at that scale will probably take as long as nuclear plants
- dagw 5y ago
  With batteries and thermal storage you can scale up over time. You can have a new small thermal storage or battery facility up and running in 2-3 years and slowly build it out over the next 20 years, with the option to change technology or capacity as needed during that time. With nuclear you have 20 years of 'nothing' before you have anything to show for your efforts.
  - tehsauce 5y ago
    It’s true you can start small and scale up, but it still would probably take many years to accumulate enough batteries to make a significant difference. Secondly, it doesn’t make 20 years to build a modern nuclear power plant, 5 years is a better estimate. So nuclear is still easily the cheaper/faster/proven method compared to batteries or thermal.
    - dagw 5y ago
      5 years is a better estimate. How I wish that where true. But looking at all current new Nuclear power plant projects in Europe and the US it's clear that we are incapable of that. Yes we can argue about why that is and how in theory it shouldn't take that long, but the truth is that best case scenario it will take you more than 5 years just to get a building permit to start buildings a new nuclear power plant.
giarc 5y ago
The best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago, the second best time is now.
- danhor 5y ago
  If you need a tree in 10, maybe don't plant one that takes 20 years to grow. If nuclear were the only option, it would be different. But the only pro-nuclear policies that make sense for achieving 1.5-2 degrees are keeping existing plants online and reactivating old ones (also policies with reasonable disagreements, but at least positive regarding climate change afaict). Building new ones simply takes too long to achieve climate goals while wind & PV are reasonably quick to do (if the political will is there).

by cure 5y ago

tehsauce 5y ago

realistically building batteries or thermal storage at that scale will probably take as long as nuclear plants

dagw 5y ago
With batteries and thermal storage you can scale up over time. You can have a new small thermal storage or battery facility up and running in 2-3 years and slowly build it out over the next 20 years, with the option to change technology or capacity as needed during that time. With nuclear you have 20 years of 'nothing' before you have anything to show for your efforts.
- tehsauce 5y ago
  It’s true you can start small and scale up, but it still would probably take many years to accumulate enough batteries to make a significant difference. Secondly, it doesn’t make 20 years to build a modern nuclear power plant, 5 years is a better estimate. So nuclear is still easily the cheaper/faster/proven method compared to batteries or thermal.
  - dagw 5y ago
    5 years is a better estimate. How I wish that where true. But looking at all current new Nuclear power plant projects in Europe and the US it's clear that we are incapable of that. Yes we can argue about why that is and how in theory it shouldn't take that long, but the truth is that best case scenario it will take you more than 5 years just to get a building permit to start buildings a new nuclear power plant.

giarc 5y ago

The best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago, the second best time is now.

danhor 5y ago
If you need a tree in 10, maybe don't plant one that takes 20 years to grow. If nuclear were the only option, it would be different. But the only pro-nuclear policies that make sense for achieving 1.5-2 degrees are keeping existing plants online and reactivating old ones (also policies with reasonable disagreements, but at least positive regarding climate change afaict). Building new ones simply takes too long to achieve climate goals while wind & PV are reasonably quick to do (if the political will is there).