There are real constraints to nuclear power, it doesn't just roll off an assembly line.
There's a very large capital investment required, a very sophisticated workforce and quite of a bit of work before construction even starts.
Even if nuclear produced no waste, it's still very expensive and complex, and too complex to build the ~600 2GW plants at the same time that the US would need to fully transition.
Which four of the French ones? I thought all the inland ones were near rivers.
The US one has 26 billion gallons piped to it.
Qatar does not have nuclear power stations. The UAE has one, which is literally about 200 yards from the ocean.
So water is still one issue. But we can pipe water, so we'll ignore that. Nuclear is already very expensive so some water transport is fine. Other issues:
existing land usage (residential or commercial) and impact on natural environment (much less than coal or land-based renewables but you still have to fight people and manage critical habitat)
geological stability because you're storing highly reactive waste on site for a decade or two and you also want to avoid incidental ground contamination getting into ground water
risk of natural disasters like flooding or tsunamis
security risks (it's remarkable there hasn't been any major damage to Ukrainian reactors)
ground stability because nuclear plants are very heavy (similar but not identical to geological stability)
I got an error there. They are built by water sources but 11 of 15 power rely on evaporative cooling via cooling towers.
There is the possibility of dry cooling, which doesn't use external water.
Geological stability is not relevant with on site storage in spent fuel pools or dry caskets.
If you keep risk assessment up to date that is not a problem (tsunami walls, emergency pumps/generators automatic shutdown, ...)
Security risks are of a concern not only for nuclear power plants. Think of pumped hydro. The Ukrainian reactors at Zaporizhzhia have very high standards of protection. Thick concrete walls, steel containment. It would be cheaper to start nuclear attacks, than to try to create a nuclear catastrophe by damaginh the reactors. But better save than sorry, hence the warnings by IAEO.
Ground stability is a factor in every building. Especially high ones with small ground area and strong forces acting on them... like wind turbines.
There are real constraints to nuclear power, it doesn't just roll off an assembly line.
There's a very large capital investment required, a very sophisticated workforce and quite of a bit of work before construction even starts.
Even if nuclear produced no waste, it's still very expensive and complex, and too complex to build the ~600 2GW plants at the same time that the US would need to fully transition.
What energy source ist fast enough to build? Wind? PV?
France constructed 56 reactors in 15 years (1974-1989) with about 60GW capacity.
Germanys nuclear program was faster in constructing capacity than any phase in the Energiewende.
Yep, solar and wind. Site selection isn't easier with wind but considerably easier than nuclear.
Static pumped hydro is still complex but not as hard as nuclear plants
You do know that you can build nuclear power plants almost anywhere?
Four of the french ones are not at water sources. The biggest in the US is located in a desert. Katar has nuclear reactors.
Why would site selection be difficult?
Which four of the French ones? I thought all the inland ones were near rivers.
The US one has 26 billion gallons piped to it.
Qatar does not have nuclear power stations. The UAE has one, which is literally about 200 yards from the ocean.
So water is still one issue. But we can pipe water, so we'll ignore that. Nuclear is already very expensive so some water transport is fine. Other issues:
I got an error there. They are built by water sources but 11 of 15 power rely on evaporative cooling via cooling towers. There is the possibility of dry cooling, which doesn't use external water.