[lucb1e]

I'm also surprised how much of a difference nuclear can make.

I mean, I know that nuclear is great as a stopgap until we build solar panels that we can actually recycle and install all the wind farms, etc. But the trouble is that a nuclear plant takes 30 years to build and for the public's opinion we might as well be proposing to move their backyards to a high tsunami risk zone or repeating all the actions that led up to the Chernobyl disaster. I've given up on this happening.

Can it still make such a big difference, even if we only start building today? It makes me wonder if I shouldn't be giving up on the option of nuclear.

[DennisP]

> a nuclear plant takes 30 years to build

Only if your country isn't serious about it. South Korea builds modern nuclear plants in about five years: https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2027347/south-korea-s...

[lucb1e]

Oh, wow, okay. That changes the perspective quite a bit. Thanks!

[mlyle]

There's a lot of issues with depending upon solely nuclear to solve these problems, but I'd like to see nuclear in the mix.

Unlike the MIT model, components of electric generation are not simple linear systems that exhibit the superposition principle. Renewables need a whole lot of moderate-term storage and over-provisioning to get to where we want to be, and nuclear could help ease that by providing a source of dependable base load.

If we're transitioning to electric cars and homes away from gas heat, we need a whole lot of power in the middle of the night-- where photovoltaic doesn't help and wind can be iffy for days at a time.

[zamadatix]

Nuclear plants take 5-10 years to build. 30 is how long it's been since public opinion in the US allowed for them to be built regularly.