4 ms·
Oh please. There's no "time" until when nuclear must be built or something fails. And it's slow only because of the anti-nuclear sentiment. It's very much possi
by AlmostAnyone 4y ago
Oh please. There's no "time" until when nuclear must be built or something fails. And it's slow only because of the anti-nuclear sentiment. It's very much possible to build it quickly - just look across the border.
- bryanlarsen 4y agoLook where? Even China takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant.
- AlmostAnyone 4y ago... And that's supposed to be bad? Even a solar project takes 10 years in Germany.
- bryanlarsen 4y agoChina can do a solar EV project in 3 months. So if it takes China 40X times as long to do nuclear than solar, how long would nuclear take in Germany if solar takes 10 years?
- AlmostAnyone 4y agoFortunately it's all about the red tape, not actual construction time. Reduce it and you can build nuclear quickly.
- bryanlarsen 4y agoOr you can reduce the red tape and build solar in 3 months or wind in 6 months. 10 years is not quick.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- AlmostAnyone 4y agoSolar/wind combined can never replace fossil fuels used by industry/for heating/as vehicle fuel. By several orders of magnitude. So we need both.
- bryanlarsen 4y agoRenewables supply approximately 25% of Europe's energy. Are you telling me it's impossible to quadruple the amount of renewable power generation in Europe? If Europe switches to heat pumps & EV's etc it'll need to double again. Still less than a single order of magnitude increase.
- AlmostAnyone 4y ago25% of electricity, definitely not 25% of all energy including heating and ground transportation, much less if you also include plane and ship traffic. We'd need to build 800 more average nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuels in EU. That's like millions of average solar parks. Impossible.