3 ms·
> Average time to build a NPP is 5 to 7 years The best time to build a NPP is 5-7 years ago. The second best time is now. > This also assumes that anyone can
by maccard 4y ago
> Average time to build a NPP is 5 to 7 years
The best time to build a NPP is 5-7 years ago. The second best time is now.
> This also assumes that anyone can build and run an NPP, it's like saying that everyone should stop doing whatever they are doing and start building Fabs during the chip crisis.
This analogy doesn't hold in two different ways;
> it's like saying that everyone should stop doing whatever they are doing
That's not what people (like me) are saying. They're not saying "stop all the other programs", they're saying "heavily heavily prioritise over many other things, as this is critically important for a country's energy security, the continent/political bloc's security, and the planet's future". We're saying claw back some of the £16 billion lost on covid loans [0], or the £10 billion spend on useless PPE[1], or don't spend hundreds of millions to send 300 people a year to rwanda [2], and instead spend _that_ on building nuclear power plants.
> and start building Fabs during the chip crisis.
There's a big difference between selling shovels in a gold rush and investing in power sources that are likely to be operational for decades even after the current crisis is resolved in whatever form it resolves in. If you build a bunch of fabs, they're useless once the pressure wears off. If we build a bunch of nuclear power stations, they're usable instead of the coal and natural gas that we're currently reliant on. Coal can stay where it is, or be used for industrial applications, and natural gas can be used as a heating source for the next 30 years until it's phased out.
> Also, what do you do with the NIMBYs?
Educate them, show them the benefits, spend money on them, and the same as we do if they oppose to fossil fuel extraction - ignore them and do it anyway. Imagine if the UK had spent £100 billion on building 3 hinkley points for £75bn, and spent £10bn on shutting up NIMBY's over the last 20 years. We'd have 3 nuclear power plants, the ability to build more for cheaper, would have created dozens if not hundreds of high skilled jobs and thousands of jobs for manual workers, _and_ it would be cheaper than freezing the energy bills of the entire UK for 18 months [3]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/23/uk-lost-up-to-16bn-due-to-and-error-in-covid-loans-schemes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/23/uk-lost-up-to-...
[1] https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/171306/4-billion-of-unusable-ppe-bought-in-first-year-of-pandemic-will-be-burnt-to-generate-power/ https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accoun...
[2] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/only-300-migrants-face-being-sent-to-rwanda-each-year-p2tqbvttf https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/only-300-migrants-face-be...
[3] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/liz-truss-cost-of-living-announcement-rescue-package-when-whats-expected-what-time-b1023918.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/liz-truss-cost-of-l...
- mrtksn 4y agoThrowing money on people and they suddenly be able to build and operate NPPs? Maybe even hundreds of them at the same time without stopping doing anything else? I guess you are tapping into the huge number of unemployed nuclear experts. At %4 of unemployment rate, even if just half of them are engineers capable of building nuclear power plant it should be enough. Throw money at people who don't want NPPs and they learn to like NPPs? No more NIMBYs.
- loudmax 4y agoI agree with your sentiment, but I'm going to nitpick one thing: > Coal can stay where it is, or be used for industrial applications I presume you're referring to the energy situation in the UK specifically, in which case I don't know how reliant you are on coal. At a global level, coal use cannot stay where it is beyond the very short term caused by the current crisis. We really need to get off of coal or work out a safe and long term carbon capture solution as soon as possible.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoI think they meant 'leave the coal in the ground' or use it to make chemical things. UK has basically phased out coal already for electricity, it's not going to be around much longer and is already a fallback choice. And I think the coal burned was mostly imported anyway.
- maccard 4y agoWe're not reliant on coal at all here for energy. I didn't mean to imply that we should, more that we can _only_ use it for heavy industries where we don't have a suitable replacement yet, e.g. steel manufacturing