[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.

[thrown_22]

And completely shuts down about once a month.

I'm sure we can deal with a 30% electricity deficit that happens randomly with a few days notice. We can shut down unimportant things like residential power. No one really needs lightbulbs every day of the month after all.

[cycomanic]

Do you know what a capacity factor is? Do you understand how overprovisioning works and why we would also need it with nuclear power (at a much higher price)? Do you have any numbers to back up your once a month claim and 30% deficit or are you just making stuff up?

[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.