11–20 of 200 posts
"Nuclear is likely to be 9% to 12% of generation in 2035" - this is absurd. We should have much more aggressive targets for nuclear. Because it is the cleanest, safest and most reliable source of 0-emission power. France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear now.
I guess just like high speed rail, China will leave the US in the dust.
"Nuclear is likely to be 9% to 12% of generation in 2035" - this is absurd. We should have much more aggressive targets for nuclear. Because it is the cleanest, safest and most reliable source of 0-emission power. France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear now.
The US can't build a nuclear plant in 13 years.
It takes longer because of the crazy regulations driven in part by environmentalists who complained about nuclear for decades while fossil fuels were the only other option.
But the USA has the resources, skills, technology and money to do so in a short period of time.
At the beginning of the article is says: "But it does not explain how adequate land to reach a 90% clean electricity penetration can be acquired or how reliability will be protected beyond that 90% penetration, stakeholders acknowledged." I'm confused that they can put a time frame on a problem they have no idea how to solve yet.
At the beginning of the article is says: "But it does not explain how adequate land to reach a 90% clean electricity penetration can be acquired or how reliability will be protected beyond that 90% penetration, stakeholders acknowledged." I'm confused that they can put a time frame on a problem they have no idea how to solve yet.
The purpose of the study [1] was to explore what a realistic solution would look like. Then you can work backwards and identify roadblocks. For example, if land acquisition is really the sole bottleneck, there are a myriad of legislative solutions that could address it.
[1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/nrel-study-identifies-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US can't build a nuclear plant in 13 years.
The US can build a plant in 13 years. It's a matter of dedication and willingness. And pissing off a minority of vocal opponents. It takes longer because of the crazy regulations driven in part by environmentalists who complained about nuclear for decades while fossil fuels were the only other option. But the USA has the resources, skills, technology and money to do so in a short period of time.
It takes China 10 years to build a reactor, and they've built lots of them in the past 20 years and don't have the regulations you decry. There's no way that the US can do it in anywhere close to the same time frame that China can.
It's not just the rules and attitudes about nuclear making things slow. We can't build a subway station in any sort of reasonable timeframe or budget.
At the beginning of the article is says: "But it does not explain how adequate land to reach a 90% clean electricity penetration can be acquired or how reliability will be protected beyond that 90% penetration, stakeholders acknowledged." I'm confused that they can put a time frame on a problem they have no idea how to solve yet.
No, they just want to get rid of fossil fuels. It doesn't matter if the new system can meet the demand at all, or how much it will cost.
Look at California. Banning lawn mowers and ICE cars. Their power grid can't even support EV charging, and they're sending out notices asking people to charge their cars at off hours.
It doesn't have to work. It just has to disrupt oil at any cost, even if the cost is human suffering.
"Nuclear is likely to be 9% to 12% of generation in 2035" - this is absurd. We should have much more aggressive targets for nuclear. Because it is the cleanest, safest and most reliable source of 0-emission power. France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear now.
More than half of France's nuclear reactors are out of commission right now, so for the foreseeable future that "70%" is more aspirational than anything. We are obviously not going to meet all of our energy needs — especially for certain high-demand applications — from solar and wind alone, but there are some significant advantages to a decentralized power grid that the pro-nuclear folks don't seem to factor into the…
Major solar and wind installations are typically concentrated in similar generating stations as nuclear plants are. Many more people will likely have solar on their homes, but it's not like wind and solar is going to lead to a purely decentralized grid where every small community is generating their own electricity. There will always be large scale generating stations for the bulk of grid electricity.
"Nuclear is likely to be 9% to 12% of generation in 2035" - this is absurd. We should have much more aggressive targets for nuclear. Because it is the cleanest, safest and most reliable source of 0-emission power. France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear now.
China started building 6 new nuclear plants this year: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/China-greenlights-6-... I guess just like high speed rail, China will leave the US in the dust.
"Nuclear is likely to be 9% to 12% of generation in 2035" - this is absurd. We should have much more aggressive targets for nuclear. Because it is the cleanest, safest and most reliable source of 0-emission power. France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear now.
China started building 6 new nuclear plants this year: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/China-greenlights-6-... I guess just like high speed rail, China will leave the US in the dust.
There's an assumption that we can simply rebuild what we built in the past, but technology has changed quite a bit, construction costs have risen quite a bit, and the lessons we have learned from prior reactors means that we dont want to build the prior designs.
Nuclear is a technology without a solid track record, and which has failed in the US, and in France, and in Finland. In these latter examples, we can't blame regulations or public support. Personally, my hypothesis is that construction productivity has been so stagnant compared to manufacturing productivity growth, that nuclear no longer makes sense for advanced economies. Economies at earlier stages of development with lower labor productivity and therefore lower labor costs, may be able to build nuclear cost-effectively.
"Nuclear is likely to be 9% to 12% of generation in 2035" - this is absurd. We should have much more aggressive targets for nuclear. Because it is the cleanest, safest and most reliable source of 0-emission power. France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear now.
Before the typical "nuclear is too expensive/takes too long to build" comments start: https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html . Understand why this is the case and how it's entirely reasonable to fix those problems with sufficient will & funding.