4 ms·

> 2. Even with the high profile accidents, nuclear power is something we know we can actually do, and has produced fewer excess deaths than coal. ...can "we",

> 2. Even with the high profile accidents, nuclear power is something we know we can actually do, and has produced fewer excess deaths than coal. ...can "we", do it, though? AFAIR (this is based on an internal study for a policy proposal done in 2015 by a minor Polish party, so take it with a grain of salt) one major issue is the lack of expertise. To build a nuclear power plant safely you need specialized and experienced engineers, and after a long lull in construction, most states don't have that many of those. And we would need _a lot_. And Chernobyl is an interesting example here, because one of the reasons for its (and many other Soviet and Russian projects) low quality is that Soviet Union/Russia have been stuck in emergency mode since the Tsars. You just needed that many flats and that much power like two decades ago - so you winged it. Thus I am wary of industrial facilities handling hazardous materials that are built in emergency mode, and the only way I see EU building enough reactors in 10 years to handle our energy needs without _major_ cuts is by winging it quite a bit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't - if we don't build reactors, nobody will go into engineering those, and the issue will persist. But I don't think we can stake our near-term future on them. That fight was lost a while ago.

panick21 5y ago
France didn't have these engineers either, and 10-20 years later they were finishing 5 plants a year. The US didn't have these people and build reactors incredibly fast as well. With modern reactors, and not gigantic PWR. You actually build most of the nuclear components in factories. The actual CAPX part is mostly the same as a gas plant. What you need is not technical engineers but many experiments people who have done it before. So you start to build one reactors before its half finished move some people start a second and a third and so on. Its basic scaling. France was able to it with terrible PWR designs from 60s, we have the opportunity to do it with amazingly small and save GenIV designs. > And Chernobyl is an interesting example here, because one of the reasons for its (and many other Soviet and Russian projects) low quality is that Soviet Union/Russia have been stuck in emergency mode since the Tsars. No sorry, that is nonsense. The reason for low quality was their political system. > You just needed that many flats and that much power like two decades ago - so you winged it. Äh no. Chernobyl was actually partly a design that allowed them to make materials for weapons. That is what their political system cared far more about then providing power to civilians. > and the only way I see EU building enough reactors in 10 years to handle our energy needs without _major_ cuts is by winging it quite a bit. No that wouldn't be how you do it. There are perfectly reasonable ways to do this without just having no standard. > near-term future on them. If near term future is 10-20 years we absolutely could.
- LaGrange 5y ago
  > No sorry, that is nonsense. The reason for low quality was their political system. It contributed, but no, it wasn't the only, or even main, reason. > If near term future is 10-20 years we absolutely could. It's not near-term future, though. We don't even have 10 years, soon it will be too late to even finish a nuclear power plant if we started it.

panick21 5y ago

France didn't have these engineers either, and 10-20 years later they were finishing 5 plants a year. The US didn't have these people and build reactors incredibly fast as well. With modern reactors, and not gigantic PWR. You actually build most of the nuclear components in factories. The actual CAPX part is mostly the same as a gas plant. What you need is not technical engineers but many experiments people who have done it before. So you start to build one reactors before its half finished move some people start a second and a third and so on. Its basic scaling. France was able to it with terrible PWR designs from 60s, we have the opportunity to do it with amazingly small and save GenIV designs. > And Chernobyl is an interesting example here, because one of the reasons for its (and many other Soviet and Russian projects) low quality is that Soviet Union/Russia have been stuck in emergency mode since the Tsars. No sorry, that is nonsense. The reason for low quality was their political system. > You just needed that many flats and that much power like two decades ago - so you winged it. Äh no. Chernobyl was actually partly a design that allowed them to make materials for weapons. That is what their political system cared far more about then providing power to civilians. > and the only way I see EU building enough reactors in 10 years to handle our energy needs without _major_ cuts is by winging it quite a bit. No that wouldn't be how you do it. There are perfectly reasonable ways to do this without just having no standard. > near-term future on them. If near term future is 10-20 years we absolutely could.

LaGrange 5y ago
> No sorry, that is nonsense. The reason for low quality was their political system. It contributed, but no, it wasn't the only, or even main, reason. > If near term future is 10-20 years we absolutely could. It's not near-term future, though. We don't even have 10 years, soon it will be too late to even finish a nuclear power plant if we started it.