4 ms·
Pretty much all relevant ceuntries also pleged to triple renewable capacity in 8 years, which seems mostly doable, while with the typical (western) construction
by danhor 3y ago
Pretty much all relevant ceuntries also pleged to triple renewable capacity in 8 years, which seems mostly doable, while with the typical (western) construction timelines for nuclear they would have to pretty much start tendering the new plants now, while currently mostly only vague promises exist.
China, which the country building the most nuclear right now, is falling behind its own plans and downscaling its nuclear ambitions in favour of renewables.
- mpweiher 3y agoI've heard rumors that you can do both at the same time.
- hef19898 3y agoI heard facts that people don't so.
- mpweiher 3y agoYou heard wrong.
- hef19898 3y agoSo, all the statistics about installed capacity of NPPs, wind, solar, hydro, coal and so on are wrong? Because those numbers show everywhere renewables outpace nuclear by orders of magnitude, including China.
- mpweiher 3y agoNo. Your conclusion is wrong. Renewables being installed does not imply nuclear not being installed.
- hef19898 3y agoNuclear is getting installed for sure. Just orders of magnitude less than renewables, and it is more expebsive. And the vast majority of new NPPs replace those being shut down, meaning the new net nuclear capacity is much less than the new NPPs total capacity. This shows cleary, if you were willing to look at the numbers, in which direction the funding goes.
- mpweiher 3y ago> Nuclear is getting installed for sure 1. To my "I've head rumors that you can do both" you replied "I heard facts that people don't so." Glad we are now agreed that your comment was not true, and mine was true. Doing "more" of one does not imply one is not doing the other at all. 2. It's not "orders of magnitude less" once you account for capacity factors. And once again: the nuclear under-investment of the last few decades is well known, and so that is what we are seeing in the stats now. The policy shifts just started happening at earliest a year ago, most this year. While nuclear doesn't take nearly as long as anti-nuclear advocates claim, it also doesn't happen in a few months either.
- hef19898 3y agoLet's see then: PV load factor for utility scale solar was 16%. China installed 230 GW, Europe 75 GW and the US 40 GW -> 55 GW incl. load factor and excluding the rest of the world Wind: Let's use 40% as a load factor, which seems reasonable. Globally, around 100 GW added -> net 40 GW NPP grid connections in 2022 (if you have 2023 numbers, please share them): 8.3 GW, with a load factor of aeound 80% for 2022 -> 6.6 GW. At the same 2.2 GW, around 1.8 GW of NPPs were shut down, resulting a net gain of 4.8 GW. In total we have 90 GW of wind solar vs. not even 7 GW of nuclear. Excluding load factors we have 440 GW of wind and solar vs. 8.3 GW of nuclear globally. In the western world, those numbers fall even more towards wind and solar. And looking at estimates until 2035, these numbers are looking even worse for nuclear. So no, countries are not doing both, countries, especially in Asia, are very, very slowly adding new NPPs while overall net added nuclear capacity is negligible and barely replacing shut down reactors. In other words, one year worth of new NPPs is added every two weeks using wind and solar. Feel free to argue those numbers...