4 ms·

Realistically if we were going to go big on nuclear we needed to do so 30 years ago. In the UK at least, it takes decades for planning permission and more decad

Realistically if we were going to go big on nuclear we needed to do so 30 years ago. In the UK at least, it takes decades for planning permission and more decades for design, build, commissioning, and finally entry of a reactor into operational service.

willis936 5y ago
Oh? What changed? The old quote: The best time to invest in nuclear was 40 years ago. The second best time is right now.
derekjdanserl 5y ago
How is this useful?
goatlover 5y ago
Why does it need to take decades to build something we already know how to do, assuming we're actually facing a dire climate catastrophe? Is it the case that we can't technically build nuclear plants in a few years time? Because I very much doubt that.
hilbert42 5y ago
"In the UK at least, it takes decades for planning permission and more decades for design, build, commissioning, and finally entry of a reactor into operational service." In France it's another matter altogether, there are nuclear power stations everywhere and about 70% of the country's energy comes from nuclear. (Years ago, during a conference I was at in Avignon we even had a tour of the nearby UF6 gaseous diffusion plant and it was almost considered matter of fact.) Compared to anglophone counties like the US, UK, Australia and NZ, France is heavenly peaceful when it comes to establishing new nuclear plants. Why is it that if one speaks English one's overly likely to object to nuclear power?
- laurencerowe 5y ago
  While it used to be a different matter in France, they last completed a reactor more than 30 years ago and the one currently being built is beset with the same time and cost overruns as those in the U.K. > A third reactor at the site, an EPR unit, began construction in 2007 with its commercial introduction scheduled for 2012. As of 2020 the project is more than five times over budget and years behind schedule. Various safety problems have been raised, including weakness in the steel used in the reactor.[1] In July 2019, further delays were announced, pushing back the commercial date to the end 2022. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl...
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    Yeah, perhaps the French have eventually 'caught' whatever it is that English speakers caught long ago. :-) More seriously, I've not been there for some years now so I'm somewhat out of touch, but at one point I was working in the industry (but not employed by any French organization, EDF, etc.), nevertheless I had a reasonable overview of what the French were doing as far as power generation was concerned. Everyone who I met almost to a person including my nontechnical aunt and uncle who lived in Paris, were pro nuclear power. They saw it as a cheap source of power and also it represented engineering excellence and prowess for France. I'm guessing, but perhaps the main reason for this collective view stems from de Gaulle's early entry into both military and nuclear power immediately after WWII - from early 1946 onward, thus nuclear power was well established in the the halcyon days of the 1950s before worldwide controversy broke out over the nuclear industry. There's also France's rebuilding phase after WWII, where modernist ideas took hold more strongly there than in many other countries. That attitude probably smoothed the way. Then there's that French Gaullism (which I admire but it's no fun being on the pointed end of it), which basically says 'we're doing it our way and to hell with the rest of you'. Perhaps that attitude has dissipated somewhat by now (at least as far as the nuclear industry is concerned). Flamanville, though, does seem to be overly uncharacteristic when compared with previous efforts. Anyway, whatever the French did early on in nuclear power genertaion, it was very successful compared to other countries, as the percentage of nuclear power produced in France is second to none.

willis936 5y ago

Oh? What changed? The old quote: The best time to invest in nuclear was 40 years ago. The second best time is right now.

derekjdanserl 5y ago

How is this useful?

goatlover 5y ago

Why does it need to take decades to build something we already know how to do, assuming we're actually facing a dire climate catastrophe? Is it the case that we can't technically build nuclear plants in a few years time? Because I very much doubt that.

hilbert42 5y ago

"In the UK at least, it takes decades for planning permission and more decades for design, build, commissioning, and finally entry of a reactor into operational service." In France it's another matter altogether, there are nuclear power stations everywhere and about 70% of the country's energy comes from nuclear. (Years ago, during a conference I was at in Avignon we even had a tour of the nearby UF6 gaseous diffusion plant and it was almost considered matter of fact.) Compared to anglophone counties like the US, UK, Australia and NZ, France is heavenly peaceful when it comes to establishing new nuclear plants. Why is it that if one speaks English one's overly likely to object to nuclear power?

laurencerowe 5y ago
While it used to be a different matter in France, they last completed a reactor more than 30 years ago and the one currently being built is beset with the same time and cost overruns as those in the U.K. > A third reactor at the site, an EPR unit, began construction in 2007 with its commercial introduction scheduled for 2012. As of 2020 the project is more than five times over budget and years behind schedule. Various safety problems have been raised, including weakness in the steel used in the reactor.[1] In July 2019, further delays were announced, pushing back the commercial date to the end 2022. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl...
- hilbert42 5y ago
  Yeah, perhaps the French have eventually 'caught' whatever it is that English speakers caught long ago. :-) More seriously, I've not been there for some years now so I'm somewhat out of touch, but at one point I was working in the industry (but not employed by any French organization, EDF, etc.), nevertheless I had a reasonable overview of what the French were doing as far as power generation was concerned. Everyone who I met almost to a person including my nontechnical aunt and uncle who lived in Paris, were pro nuclear power. They saw it as a cheap source of power and also it represented engineering excellence and prowess for France. I'm guessing, but perhaps the main reason for this collective view stems from de Gaulle's early entry into both military and nuclear power immediately after WWII - from early 1946 onward, thus nuclear power was well established in the the halcyon days of the 1950s before worldwide controversy broke out over the nuclear industry. There's also France's rebuilding phase after WWII, where modernist ideas took hold more strongly there than in many other countries. That attitude probably smoothed the way. Then there's that French Gaullism (which I admire but it's no fun being on the pointed end of it), which basically says 'we're doing it our way and to hell with the rest of you'. Perhaps that attitude has dissipated somewhat by now (at least as far as the nuclear industry is concerned). Flamanville, though, does seem to be overly uncharacteristic when compared with previous efforts. Anyway, whatever the French did early on in nuclear power genertaion, it was very successful compared to other countries, as the percentage of nuclear power produced in France is second to none.