3 ms·

Yes, how much larger is China than France? The 12 in China don't even compare to the single plant built in France right now, if you do the math. And of course,

by _ph_ 6y ago

Yes, how much larger is China than France? The 12 in China don't even compare to the single plant built in France right now, if you do the math. And of course, just France would need over 50 new plants, if they wanted to continue to use nuclear energy.

adventured 6y ago
> The 12 in China don't even compare to the single plant built in France right now, if you do the math. I have no idea what you're talking about. The 12 reactors under construction in China are equal to 19% of France's entire nuclear base. And those are just what China has under construction over the next four to five years. In the 20 years it will take France to expand Flamanville, China will have deployed new nuclear capacity greater than the total installed nuclear base in France.
- _ph_ 6y ago
  Well you have to divide the energy generation by the population. China has 21 times the population of France, so building 12x as many nuclear power plants isn't much. And France would need to build at least 10 right now, if they wanted to keep their ratio of nuclear power production.
  - adventured 6y ago
    > China has 21 times the population of France, so building 12x as many nuclear power plants isn't much. They're not 12 nuclear power plants, they're reactors. China is adding 35-40x the new nuclear power generation vs France over 20 years. It doesn't make much sense to only sample 4-5 years for such a ratio given how long it takes to build nuclear. If we only sample out to 2024-2025, France may be at zero on that scale given the endless delays in their construction. Not to mention, if we pick up the sampling after France is done their present construction, China's advantage jumps to infinite, since France won't be building anything. You're also moving goalposts repeatedly in these comments. First you said nobody can build nuclear today. I point out that, in fact, China and India are building nuclear just fine. Then you say that what China is building doesn't compare to what France is doing. Then I point out that, in fact, China's 12 new reactors are considerable in output, so much so that they're equal to 1/5 of France's entire nuclear base. The output of those 12 reactors is far larger than anything France is building currently, many times over. Then you move the goalpost again, to a matter of ratios, which I didn't dispute in the first place because it had nothing to do with what you originally claimed. Your ratio premise requires that China stop building new nuclear power, when their plans are the opposite, they're going to keep building, whereas France is not. For China it's an ongoing process of adding.
    - _ph_ 6y ago
      No, completely not. Of course I am aware that nuclear power plants are still being built. For various reasons. I said, no one can afford to build nuclear power plants. That some still do, is another matter. The thing is: France is not building enough nuclear power plants to sustain their current nuclear production levels. Finland is struggling to finish the one under construction (vast cost overruns), the UK has a single plant in production with guaranteed prices way higher than market (they want to keep nuclear capability for military reasons I guess). In the US, two half finished plants got abandoned for cost reasons. Yes, China (and some others) still have ongoing nuclear power plant construction, but compared to the country size, their efforts are also miniscule. To get to the same level of nuclear production, China would need about 1000 plants. They are very far from that and their expansion in renewables is much larger than in nuclear.
      - GlennS 6y ago
        When the Hinkley project in the UK was originally planned it probably looked like a much better calculation. Renewables were still expensive then. Oil prices were heading over $100/barrel - with no reason to believe they would drop. There was a lot of hope around the new generation of automatically safe reactors. Hinkley was supposed to be the first in a chain of new reactors, with later reactors having decreasing costs due to economies of scale and learning. Time passed, delays accumulated, the situation changed, and I guess they just refused to adapt to the new circumstances, because they'd already spend so much money?

by _ph_ 6y ago

adventured 6y ago

> The 12 in China don't even compare to the single plant built in France right now, if you do the math. I have no idea what you're talking about. The 12 reactors under construction in China are equal to 19% of France's entire nuclear base. And those are just what China has under construction over the next four to five years. In the 20 years it will take France to expand Flamanville, China will have deployed new nuclear capacity greater than the total installed nuclear base in France.

_ph_ 6y ago
Well you have to divide the energy generation by the population. China has 21 times the population of France, so building 12x as many nuclear power plants isn't much. And France would need to build at least 10 right now, if they wanted to keep their ratio of nuclear power production.
- adventured 6y ago
  > China has 21 times the population of France, so building 12x as many nuclear power plants isn't much. They're not 12 nuclear power plants, they're reactors. China is adding 35-40x the new nuclear power generation vs France over 20 years. It doesn't make much sense to only sample 4-5 years for such a ratio given how long it takes to build nuclear. If we only sample out to 2024-2025, France may be at zero on that scale given the endless delays in their construction. Not to mention, if we pick up the sampling after France is done their present construction, China's advantage jumps to infinite, since France won't be building anything. You're also moving goalposts repeatedly in these comments. First you said nobody can build nuclear today. I point out that, in fact, China and India are building nuclear just fine. Then you say that what China is building doesn't compare to what France is doing. Then I point out that, in fact, China's 12 new reactors are considerable in output, so much so that they're equal to 1/5 of France's entire nuclear base. The output of those 12 reactors is far larger than anything France is building currently, many times over. Then you move the goalpost again, to a matter of ratios, which I didn't dispute in the first place because it had nothing to do with what you originally claimed. Your ratio premise requires that China stop building new nuclear power, when their plans are the opposite, they're going to keep building, whereas France is not. For China it's an ongoing process of adding.
  - _ph_ 6y ago
    No, completely not. Of course I am aware that nuclear power plants are still being built. For various reasons. I said, no one can afford to build nuclear power plants. That some still do, is another matter. The thing is: France is not building enough nuclear power plants to sustain their current nuclear production levels. Finland is struggling to finish the one under construction (vast cost overruns), the UK has a single plant in production with guaranteed prices way higher than market (they want to keep nuclear capability for military reasons I guess). In the US, two half finished plants got abandoned for cost reasons. Yes, China (and some others) still have ongoing nuclear power plant construction, but compared to the country size, their efforts are also miniscule. To get to the same level of nuclear production, China would need about 1000 plants. They are very far from that and their expansion in renewables is much larger than in nuclear.
    - GlennS 6y ago
      When the Hinkley project in the UK was originally planned it probably looked like a much better calculation. Renewables were still expensive then. Oil prices were heading over $100/barrel - with no reason to believe they would drop. There was a lot of hope around the new generation of automatically safe reactors. Hinkley was supposed to be the first in a chain of new reactors, with later reactors having decreasing costs due to economies of scale and learning. Time passed, delays accumulated, the situation changed, and I guess they just refused to adapt to the new circumstances, because they'd already spend so much money?