5 ms·

50 years ago yesterday, French Prime Minister Pierre Messmer announced an ambitious plan to build 13 nuclear power plants to fulfill most of the country's energ

50 years ago yesterday, French Prime Minister Pierre Messmer announced an ambitious plan to build 13 nuclear power plants to fulfill most of the country's energy needs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Mess... Time for America to do the same?

1oag 3y ago
THE USA hates to think outside the box especially for long term planning..
bryanlarsen 3y ago
Good idea 20 years ago. Announcing a program that'll solve the problem in 20 years won't solve today's problems.
- andruby 3y ago
  true, but that's the short-term thinking that gets us here
- vianneychevalie 3y ago
  At least in France we’ve been saying that for 8 years. The second best time to plant a tree is now.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Gigawatt scale solar installations can and have been built in under 2 years in the US.
- falserum 3y ago
  https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... > It takes around 6 to 8 years to build a nuclear reactor. (Note: There is no data on planning part though; not so easy to methodically measure probably) Point still valid, but 20 years seems excessively pessimistic.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Your link shows that China & Japan can build quickly now, and that the US and the UK could build quickly in the past. Also keep in mind that the limited amount of data for US/UK plants are for long planned expansions. Vogtle was built to accomodate 4 reactors from the start. So Vogtle 3 & 4 should have taken considerably less time than average. But let's be generous and say that a greenfield project takes less time to construct than Vogtle, or 10 years. Do you think planning & approvals can be done in less than 10 years? Even the touted "small modular reactor" projects take over a decade. For example, the INL small reactor project started in 2013, kept getting delayed until it had a start date of 2030, and then was cancelled a few months ago. And meeting demand with nuclear would require around ~200 full size reactors. 20 years to build 200 reactors sounds extremely optimistic to me.
- TrueGeek 3y ago
  The best time to build a nuclear power plant is 20 years ago, the second best time is now.
  - marssaxman 3y ago
    If you are a capitalist looking for a return on investment, the best time to build a nuclear power plant is probably going to be "whenever we run out of places to put solar panels and wind farms".
zpeti 3y ago
Highly doubt this is a good political move atm, so it’s very unlikely to happen
- foobarian 3y ago
  Why not though? I thought the anti-nuke stuff kinda petered out by now.
  - ambichook 3y ago
    mostly because people dont talk about nuclear as much in general. in aus at least, it seems like nobody cares, and the second you raise the idea you get a bunch of people crawling out of the woodwork going "i don't want to grow an extra set of eyes" despite the fact that nobody is proposing to put the plant in their backyard or the fact that just being near a plant isnt all that dangerous in the first place
blueferret 3y ago
While I agree that it would make a lot of sense, as another user commented, it's too much of a political football. More's the pity. Nuclear is an incredibly useful power generation method. With current tech, it would take much less time to stand up than it used to.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  There are legitimate technical/logistical issues. Nuke plants require alot of water for cooling, have to be sited at a river or lake or something, and the ambient temperature of that water determines whether or not it is sufficient for cooling needs. Even when this is the case, the plant can often raise temperatures enough with its discharge to murder native species living in it downstream of discharge. Like with hydro, there's only so many places nukes can go. Even without nimbyism and politics, nukes may not scale. Depends on how power hungry the next few generations become.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    Not to mention we still don't have a method for dealing with the waste they produce. Beyond the effects to the environment directly around it, then we have to find a deep hole to bury the spent fuel.
    - adregan 3y ago
      To add to this: Nuclear advocates would do well to keep up to date with the Indian Point decommissioning in order to propose solutions to the knottiest problem for nuclear: the plants are owned by corporations who do bad things. If you want nuclear to prosper, there needs to be solutions to issues like a company announcing it will discharge nuclear waste into the Hudson River with no regard as to how it might affect local economies or residents. I think nuclear energy is quite a powerful tool in our quest to decarbonize, but I have very little trust in the stewardship of for profit companies who have very little regard for the lifetimes of the materials when they live and die by the quarter (relatedly see PFAs, micro plastics, &c.).
MichaelRo 3y ago
>> ambitious plan to build 13 nuclear power plants to fulfill most of the (France) country's energy needs Scaling the surface this means 200 nuclear power plants in the US. There already are 50 so another 150 to go. More chances for Fukushima / Chernobyl situations.
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  Don't build them on fault zones and tsunami-frequented coastlines, problem solved. There's sure to be 150 locations in the US where neither earthquakes nor tsunamis are frequent occurrences. Also, don't build graphite-core dual-purpose (power- and weapons-grade fissile material-producing) reactors without documenting the dual purpose and without telling the operating personnel about reactor behaviour under stress situations.

1oag 3y ago

THE USA hates to think outside the box especially for long term planning..

bryanlarsen 3y ago

Good idea 20 years ago. Announcing a program that'll solve the problem in 20 years won't solve today's problems.

andruby 3y ago
true, but that's the short-term thinking that gets us here
vianneychevalie 3y ago
At least in France we’ve been saying that for 8 years. The second best time to plant a tree is now.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Gigawatt scale solar installations can and have been built in under 2 years in the US.
falserum 3y ago
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... > It takes around 6 to 8 years to build a nuclear reactor. (Note: There is no data on planning part though; not so easy to methodically measure probably) Point still valid, but 20 years seems excessively pessimistic.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Your link shows that China & Japan can build quickly now, and that the US and the UK could build quickly in the past. Also keep in mind that the limited amount of data for US/UK plants are for long planned expansions. Vogtle was built to accomodate 4 reactors from the start. So Vogtle 3 & 4 should have taken considerably less time than average. But let's be generous and say that a greenfield project takes less time to construct than Vogtle, or 10 years. Do you think planning & approvals can be done in less than 10 years? Even the touted "small modular reactor" projects take over a decade. For example, the INL small reactor project started in 2013, kept getting delayed until it had a start date of 2030, and then was cancelled a few months ago. And meeting demand with nuclear would require around ~200 full size reactors. 20 years to build 200 reactors sounds extremely optimistic to me.
TrueGeek 3y ago
The best time to build a nuclear power plant is 20 years ago, the second best time is now.
- marssaxman 3y ago
  If you are a capitalist looking for a return on investment, the best time to build a nuclear power plant is probably going to be "whenever we run out of places to put solar panels and wind farms".

zpeti 3y ago

Highly doubt this is a good political move atm, so it’s very unlikely to happen

foobarian 3y ago
Why not though? I thought the anti-nuke stuff kinda petered out by now.
- ambichook 3y ago
  mostly because people dont talk about nuclear as much in general. in aus at least, it seems like nobody cares, and the second you raise the idea you get a bunch of people crawling out of the woodwork going "i don't want to grow an extra set of eyes" despite the fact that nobody is proposing to put the plant in their backyard or the fact that just being near a plant isnt all that dangerous in the first place

blueferret 3y ago

While I agree that it would make a lot of sense, as another user commented, it's too much of a political football. More's the pity. Nuclear is an incredibly useful power generation method. With current tech, it would take much less time to stand up than it used to.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
There are legitimate technical/logistical issues. Nuke plants require alot of water for cooling, have to be sited at a river or lake or something, and the ambient temperature of that water determines whether or not it is sufficient for cooling needs. Even when this is the case, the plant can often raise temperatures enough with its discharge to murder native species living in it downstream of discharge. Like with hydro, there's only so many places nukes can go. Even without nimbyism and politics, nukes may not scale. Depends on how power hungry the next few generations become.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  Not to mention we still don't have a method for dealing with the waste they produce. Beyond the effects to the environment directly around it, then we have to find a deep hole to bury the spent fuel.
  - adregan 3y ago
    To add to this: Nuclear advocates would do well to keep up to date with the Indian Point decommissioning in order to propose solutions to the knottiest problem for nuclear: the plants are owned by corporations who do bad things. If you want nuclear to prosper, there needs to be solutions to issues like a company announcing it will discharge nuclear waste into the Hudson River with no regard as to how it might affect local economies or residents. I think nuclear energy is quite a powerful tool in our quest to decarbonize, but I have very little trust in the stewardship of for profit companies who have very little regard for the lifetimes of the materials when they live and die by the quarter (relatedly see PFAs, micro plastics, &c.).

MichaelRo 3y ago

>> ambitious plan to build 13 nuclear power plants to fulfill most of the (France) country's energy needs Scaling the surface this means 200 nuclear power plants in the US. There already are 50 so another 150 to go. More chances for Fukushima / Chernobyl situations.

the_third_wave 3y ago
Don't build them on fault zones and tsunami-frequented coastlines, problem solved. There's sure to be 150 locations in the US where neither earthquakes nor tsunamis are frequent occurrences. Also, don't build graphite-core dual-purpose (power- and weapons-grade fissile material-producing) reactors without documenting the dual purpose and without telling the operating personnel about reactor behaviour under stress situations.