5 ms·

Or the planet decides to go nuclear for power, instead of burning dinos.

by tpmx 4y ago

falcolas 4y ago
I highly doubt 31 years is enough time to convert the entire United States, let alone the entire world, to nuclear power.
- tpmx 4y ago
  Well, not with that attitude. I'm pretty sure it's possible. I think it could be done in 20 years, but instead what happens is that every year we have this debate between a) liberal arts people who think nuclear power is really scary because they don't understand it, and they saw that HBO series and it got even scarier b) engineering people who know that nuclear power is the solution and what happened in Chernobyl was an abberation, and it didn't even kill a fraction of the people that coal power has killed, anyway. And every year, nothing happens, because of this stalemate.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    Of course it’s my attitude that’s going to hold us back, and not the extreme cost and the sheer time required to build and fuel enough nuclear facilities to handle our projected energy needs. Energy needs which must also include the increased demand from our migration off all gas or coal based heating and cooking. My bad. EDIT: To accommodate the total projected energy demands for the US alone, we would need to build around 600 new reactors (fewer if solar and wind take off well beyond projected values), while also ensuring that the existing reactors continue to operate (or are replaced). Each reactor costs in excess of $20B to build. As for the time required, it's been documented to take anywhere from 10 to 25 years each. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=1-aeo2019&cases=ref2019~ref_no_cpp&sourcekey=0 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=1-aeo201...
    - tpmx 4y ago
      Yes, it's your bad (with that attitude).
    - tpmx 4y ago
      Re: your EDIT: Yes, it will take some time. If we stop doing oneoffs and start thinking of them as products to be massproduced it will go faster and cheaper (but still take at least maybe 15 years).
      - Ekaros 4y ago
        After first 10 years we should be able to stop repeating the same mistakes. And keep sufficient standards. Just stagger the building in start with 1 year intervals and then when working processes are found ramp it up.
- euroderf 4y ago
  Needs assembly lines. None of this custom-every-time stuff.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    It's hard to assembly line the on-site construction, materials, and labor (building the containment vessel, steam generator building, cooling towers), which accounts for about half of the costs of a modern nuclear facility.
    - euroderf 4y ago
      I was thinking of the recent announcements regarding modular reactors that are factory-built. I should have made this clear in my post.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  10 years of planning, 20 years of building. With 5-10 of ramp up. Honestly it doesn't seem so bad. There just isn't political will to force decisions through and then force the invesment.

Or the planet decides to go nuclear for power, instead of burning dinos.

by tpmx 4y ago

Or the planet decides to go nuclear for power, instead of burning dinos.

I highly doubt 31 years is enough time to convert the entire United States, let alone the entire world, to nuclear power.

tpmx 4y ago
Well, not with that attitude. I'm pretty sure it's possible. I think it could be done in 20 years, but instead what happens is that every year we have this debate between a) liberal arts people who think nuclear power is really scary because they don't understand it, and they saw that HBO series and it got even scarier b) engineering people who know that nuclear power is the solution and what happened in Chernobyl was an abberation, and it didn't even kill a fraction of the people that coal power has killed, anyway. And every year, nothing happens, because of this stalemate.
- falcolas 4y ago
  Of course it’s my attitude that’s going to hold us back, and not the extreme cost and the sheer time required to build and fuel enough nuclear facilities to handle our projected energy needs. Energy needs which must also include the increased demand from our migration off all gas or coal based heating and cooking. My bad. EDIT: To accommodate the total projected energy demands for the US alone, we would need to build around 600 new reactors (fewer if solar and wind take off well beyond projected values), while also ensuring that the existing reactors continue to operate (or are replaced). Each reactor costs in excess of $20B to build. As for the time required, it's been documented to take anywhere from 10 to 25 years each. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=1-aeo2019&cases=ref2019~ref_no_cpp&sourcekey=0 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=1-aeo201...
  - tpmx 4y ago
    Yes, it's your bad (with that attitude).
  - tpmx 4y ago
    Re: your EDIT: Yes, it will take some time. If we stop doing oneoffs and start thinking of them as products to be massproduced it will go faster and cheaper (but still take at least maybe 15 years).
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      After first 10 years we should be able to stop repeating the same mistakes. And keep sufficient standards. Just stagger the building in start with 1 year intervals and then when working processes are found ramp it up.
euroderf 4y ago
Needs assembly lines. None of this custom-every-time stuff.
- falcolas 4y ago
  It's hard to assembly line the on-site construction, materials, and labor (building the containment vessel, steam generator building, cooling towers), which accounts for about half of the costs of a modern nuclear facility.
  - euroderf 4y ago
    I was thinking of the recent announcements regarding modular reactors that are factory-built. I should have made this clear in my post.
Ekaros 4y ago
10 years of planning, 20 years of building. With 5-10 of ramp up. Honestly it doesn't seem so bad. There just isn't political will to force decisions through and then force the invesment.