3 ms·

https://nitter.net/CleanPowerDave/status/1729784959890506150#m https://nitter.net/CleanPowerDave/status/1729784959890506150... says China will likely install 24

by Arnt 3y ago

https://nitter.net/CleanPowerDave/status/1729784959890506150#m https://nitter.net/CleanPowerDave/status/1729784959890506150... says China will likely install 240GW of solar this year, which is about 90% of what the entire world installed last year. I agree that the piece sounds as if it's trying not to mention renewables.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
The update to the old IEA misprediction of solar graph found in that thread is illustrative: https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FGADZCdnWEAA6XhK.jpg https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FGADZCdnWEAA6XhK.jpg
matthewdgreen 3y ago
They built more solar and wind in the first nine months of this year than the total future generation of their whole reactor fleet under construction. And with battery storage manufacturing rates/cost also on a similar (albeit earlier) exponential curve, it’s hard to see the economic case for nuclear 20-30 years from now.
- bognition 3y ago
  Solar and wind are great but they don’t provide a continuous source of energy. Batteries are great too and should help smooth out the supply dips. That said you should absolutely have something around that can rapidly scale in the event of the inability to provide enough energy. Nuclear probably won’t be the main source but it will be a necessary mow part of the solution.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    As of today, China is anticipating that nuclear will make up only 18% of its electrical generation by 2060, and nearly all of the rest will be renewables and storage. That 18% isn't enough generation to handle the "surge to make up for renewable sources suddenly drying up" use case, even if that's a real thing to worry about (which it isn't, when you're building a mostly-renewable grid at continental scale.) But even that 18% is already starting to look like it's out of date. Energy generation, battery storage and renewable generation are all growing exponentially and well beyond the government's targets. I think it's much more likely that renewables and storage will vastly outpace nuclear generation, and that 18% estimate will prove to be absurdly high. Once you've got a grid that's 90+% renewables and storage, a few nuclear plants aren't going to make much of a difference.
    - BurningFrog 3y ago
      > which it isn't, when you're building a mostly-renewable grid at continental scale Can you give any arguments for that surprising statement? I hope we can agree that solar energy will dry up across all of China on a nightly basis. Wind strength is also often strongly correlated over large areas. Sweden has learned this the hard way in recent winters.
      - Arnt 3y ago
        I think you may assume that wind strength are correlated over Sweden-sized areas in China as well, and that sunset will surprise no one and can accommodated by normal planning.
  - Kon5ole 3y ago
    >Solar and wind are great but they don’t provide a continuous source of energy. This is a solved problem through various forms of storage (synthetic gas, pumped hydro, batteries etc). Nuclear is a solid baseline for sure but I don't think there is a way around the security requirements, which means it will become too expensive to keep around when free energy from the sun can be stored cheaply.
dahfizz 3y ago
Literally the first sentence of the article: > To wean their country off imported oil and gas, and in the hope of retiring dirty coal-fired power stations, China’s leaders have poured money into wind and solar energy. Its silly that an article about nuclear can't just exist. Even though it does discuss renewables, all the comments here are just "wut about solar"
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  "pouring money into" something is an ambiguous phrase, I'd say tending towards the negative in context, and they do mention renewables later, they talk about their alleged flaws and limitations. And then mislead about the amount of solar production. There's definately some degree of framing going on here that you'd perhaps not expect from a magazine except in advertorial content.

by Arnt 3y ago

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

The update to the old IEA misprediction of solar graph found in that thread is illustrative: https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FGADZCdnWEAA6XhK.jpg https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FGADZCdnWEAA6XhK.jpg

matthewdgreen 3y ago

They built more solar and wind in the first nine months of this year than the total future generation of their whole reactor fleet under construction. And with battery storage manufacturing rates/cost also on a similar (albeit earlier) exponential curve, it’s hard to see the economic case for nuclear 20-30 years from now.

bognition 3y ago
Solar and wind are great but they don’t provide a continuous source of energy. Batteries are great too and should help smooth out the supply dips. That said you should absolutely have something around that can rapidly scale in the event of the inability to provide enough energy. Nuclear probably won’t be the main source but it will be a necessary mow part of the solution.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  As of today, China is anticipating that nuclear will make up only 18% of its electrical generation by 2060, and nearly all of the rest will be renewables and storage. That 18% isn't enough generation to handle the "surge to make up for renewable sources suddenly drying up" use case, even if that's a real thing to worry about (which it isn't, when you're building a mostly-renewable grid at continental scale.) But even that 18% is already starting to look like it's out of date. Energy generation, battery storage and renewable generation are all growing exponentially and well beyond the government's targets. I think it's much more likely that renewables and storage will vastly outpace nuclear generation, and that 18% estimate will prove to be absurdly high. Once you've got a grid that's 90+% renewables and storage, a few nuclear plants aren't going to make much of a difference.
  - BurningFrog 3y ago
    > which it isn't, when you're building a mostly-renewable grid at continental scale Can you give any arguments for that surprising statement? I hope we can agree that solar energy will dry up across all of China on a nightly basis. Wind strength is also often strongly correlated over large areas. Sweden has learned this the hard way in recent winters.
    - Arnt 3y ago
      I think you may assume that wind strength are correlated over Sweden-sized areas in China as well, and that sunset will surprise no one and can accommodated by normal planning.
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >Solar and wind are great but they don’t provide a continuous source of energy. This is a solved problem through various forms of storage (synthetic gas, pumped hydro, batteries etc). Nuclear is a solid baseline for sure but I don't think there is a way around the security requirements, which means it will become too expensive to keep around when free energy from the sun can be stored cheaply.

dahfizz 3y ago

Literally the first sentence of the article: > To wean their country off imported oil and gas, and in the hope of retiring dirty coal-fired power stations, China’s leaders have poured money into wind and solar energy. Its silly that an article about nuclear can't just exist. Even though it does discuss renewables, all the comments here are just "wut about solar"

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
"pouring money into" something is an ambiguous phrase, I'd say tending towards the negative in context, and they do mention renewables later, they talk about their alleged flaws and limitations. And then mislead about the amount of solar production. There's definately some degree of framing going on here that you'd perhaps not expect from a magazine except in advertorial content.