3 ms·

7 years is way too long. And it was a different time, in an economy with different skills, and entirely different technologies. What was cheap and fast 50 yea

7 years is way too long. And it was a different time, in an economy with different skills, and entirely different technologies. What was cheap and fast 50 years ago may not be the best thing to build today. For example, the wealthy no longer build many mansions with intricate stonework and wood molding, all crafted by hand. The workforce is no longer there. We should pay close attention to the productive capacity of today, what sort of industrial machines we have at our actual disposal. Nobody who is talking about nuclear pays attention to what it would actually take to build nuclear like France did in the 1970s, it's just an assumption that it could be done, without paying attention to any of the details. Further, those proposing lots of new nuclear never deal with the massive failures of current attempts, whether it's France's EPR designs at Flamanville, Olkiluoto, or Hinkley. All have been failures. What would change to get a first-of-a-kind build down to 7 years? Nobody has answers to these questions, least of all the nuclear industry. And until somebody has a clear and detailed and knowledgeable path forward on construction, we will waste billions and billions more on ineffective nuclear when those resources could instead be out to use right away with storage and renewables.

pyrale 5y ago
> 7 years is way too long. What's a good timeline then, and what technology not emitting co2 supports it? The countries that have started wind&solar policies a decade ago are nowhere close to a clean electricity mix. In fact, fossil plants and infrastructures are still being built in these countries.
- epistasis 5y ago
  There's a big contradiction in your two assessments here. You seem to think that nuclear can scale from almost nothing to the hundreds of reactor per year that we need in a suitable amount of time. However, even with renewable's exponential growth to hundreds of GW deployed every year today, with exponential growth continuing from today, you seem to think it's not enough. If you plot out the growth of wind and solar deployments rate, we are just baaaarely on track to replace all of our energy services with renewable energy in the next 15-20 years. Storage is also growing at an acceptable rate for our needs, we are producing 200GWh/ year right now, will get to 2000GWh/year by 2026, and be at 20-30 TWh/ year by 2031-2036. In contrast, if we figure out how to build a first-of-a-kind in 7 years, then start scaling up, most of the energy transition will have already happened. The only reason to pursue nuclear is if it seems to be cheaper than the alternatives. It doesn't look like it will be. But even if it's more expensive, getting 10% or so of our power from nuclear might lead to a cost optimal solution, so I hope the industry can pull itself together. I'm doubtful, but hopeful.
  - pyrale 5y ago
    > You seem to think that nuclear can scale from almost nothing to the hundreds of reactor per year that we need in a suitable amount of time. I cite a previous example of a country starting several new reactors per year over a couple decades, with a mean build time of 6-7 years, and ending up with an electricity production which is mostly CO2-free. It is not me thinking, or an hypothetical scenario, it's the history of France's commercial nuclear program between 1970 and 1990. > There's a big contradiction in your two assessments here.[...] > However, even with renewable's exponential growth to hundreds of GW deployed every year today, with exponential growth continuing from today, you seem to think it's not enough. There's no contradiction. You simply chose to reframe my statement to make it say something else. My point is that despite "exponential growth to hundreds of GW deployed every year", countries with a strong wind/solar policy did not manage to curb their CO2 emissions per MWh to reasonable levels. My concern is about the time it will take before these wind/solar policies have a significant effect on electricity CO2 emissions at the scale of a country. I don't really care about installed capacity. So my point is, if 7 years is too long, what is a reasonable timeframe for effective CO2 reduction, and where did you see policies actually achieve that?

pyrale 5y ago

> 7 years is way too long. What's a good timeline then, and what technology not emitting co2 supports it? The countries that have started wind&solar policies a decade ago are nowhere close to a clean electricity mix. In fact, fossil plants and infrastructures are still being built in these countries.

epistasis 5y ago
There's a big contradiction in your two assessments here. You seem to think that nuclear can scale from almost nothing to the hundreds of reactor per year that we need in a suitable amount of time. However, even with renewable's exponential growth to hundreds of GW deployed every year today, with exponential growth continuing from today, you seem to think it's not enough. If you plot out the growth of wind and solar deployments rate, we are just baaaarely on track to replace all of our energy services with renewable energy in the next 15-20 years. Storage is also growing at an acceptable rate for our needs, we are producing 200GWh/ year right now, will get to 2000GWh/year by 2026, and be at 20-30 TWh/ year by 2031-2036. In contrast, if we figure out how to build a first-of-a-kind in 7 years, then start scaling up, most of the energy transition will have already happened. The only reason to pursue nuclear is if it seems to be cheaper than the alternatives. It doesn't look like it will be. But even if it's more expensive, getting 10% or so of our power from nuclear might lead to a cost optimal solution, so I hope the industry can pull itself together. I'm doubtful, but hopeful.
- pyrale 5y ago
  > You seem to think that nuclear can scale from almost nothing to the hundreds of reactor per year that we need in a suitable amount of time. I cite a previous example of a country starting several new reactors per year over a couple decades, with a mean build time of 6-7 years, and ending up with an electricity production which is mostly CO2-free. It is not me thinking, or an hypothetical scenario, it's the history of France's commercial nuclear program between 1970 and 1990. > There's a big contradiction in your two assessments here.[...] > However, even with renewable's exponential growth to hundreds of GW deployed every year today, with exponential growth continuing from today, you seem to think it's not enough. There's no contradiction. You simply chose to reframe my statement to make it say something else. My point is that despite "exponential growth to hundreds of GW deployed every year", countries with a strong wind/solar policy did not manage to curb their CO2 emissions per MWh to reasonable levels. My concern is about the time it will take before these wind/solar policies have a significant effect on electricity CO2 emissions at the scale of a country. I don't really care about installed capacity. So my point is, if 7 years is too long, what is a reasonable timeframe for effective CO2 reduction, and where did you see policies actually achieve that?