3 ms·

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

by bryanlarsen 3y ago

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".

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".