[forgetfreeman]

If your target is 2030 that's not enough time to permit and construct a single conventional nuclear power plant in North America. The permitting process alone typically runs 5 years or more before ground is even broken on construction.

[melling]

Yeah, yeah, I heard all this 10 years ago. I imagine you’ll be saying the same thing in 2030 when coal usage will be about 35% of global electricity.

[forgetfreeman]

I'm not sure I follow you here. It takes 12+ years to permit and construct a nuclear power plant in North America. This isn't a matter of opinion but of observed reality. They take on average 7 years to build with a 5+ year long permitting process before ground is broken. So unless you're proposing the government imminent domain a bunch of reactors into existence I don't understand what we're even talking about?

[thrown_22]

That the best time to start building a nuclear plant was 12 years ago. The second best is _now_.

[cycomanic]

No, we can build double the capacity if we build wind and solar now and the wind and solar will reduce or CO2 emissions while the nuclear plant is still in the planning/building phase, why should we build nuclear?

[thrown_22]

Double of zero is still zero.

[cycomanic]

Do you have an actual argument? Offshore wind has a capacity factor of 60% that is close to nuclear power plants. If you locally distribute your generation, the chances of power falling to zero goes to zero.

[inkblotuniverse]

Maybe permitting shouldn't take 5 years?

[forgetfreeman]

Maybe not. Between NIMBY groups and the political polarization around climate change I think we can all pretty vividly imagine what Twitter would look like 60 seconds after draft legislation to this effect was proposed.