4 ms·

Lets put it in a formula: - comparison of net additional capacities: total name plate capacity of new NPPs being build + total nameplate capacity of new NPPs p

by hef19898 3y ago

Lets put it in a formula: - comparison of net additional capacities: total name plate capacity of new NPPs being build + total nameplate capacity of new NPPs planned and proposed - nameplate capacity going offline vs. new solar + wind capacity being installed, do that on a yearly basis intil, say, 2035 Run the math, provide sources for the numbers, come back and share the result and your interpretation of it. Takes about max. an hour if you don't where to look for input data yet, much less if you do already.

mpweiher 3y ago
Why should I do that? The policy shift was announced was announced December 2nd of this year. So 26 days ago. And your counter is "so where are all the new nuclear plants, I don't see them". Seriously?
- hef19898 3y ago
  Glad we agree that so far there was no nuclear build out, anywhere! Edit: COP28 agreed on triplong renewable capacity to 11 TW by 2030. If we consider pledges for future NPPs, I think it is just fair to do the same when it comes to renewables, right?
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    Also incorrect. There was quite a bit of nuclear built. For example France nuclearized its electricity grid. In the last 20 years, policy shifted away from nuclear and there was very little built. This hasn’t been in dispute in the least bit. Just now we have witnessed a policy shift by most countries where nuclear is or was relevant back towards nuclear. To argue that this policy shift hasn’t happened because we didn’t see its effects in the last 20 years seems weird, unless there was some important time travel news I missed. To argue that the policy shift hasn’t happened because we haven’t seen new nuclear plants pop up since the few weeks or months since the shifts happened and were announced is also…odd. And you seem to be under this impression that for nuclear to be built up, renewables must somehow be reduced. This is simply not the case.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      There was no real build out since the, what, 80s? And no projection I have found hinted at one in the future. If those policy changes are supossed to any effect by 2035, those new NPPs would have to be at least in planning stage by now, which they are not. Unless you assume all those future reactors are magically planned, approved, built and connected at a fraction of the time all others are. In which case, please specify how exactly that is aupposed to happen. Otherwise, all you have is claims, unfounded ones at that, and pipedreams.
      - mpweiher 3y ago
        The projections you read are the ones that precede the current policy shift. > If those policy changes are supossed to any effect by 2035 They are not. 2050 is the target date for tripling. > those new NPPs would have to be at least in planning stage by now, which they are not A lot of the policy changes just happened this year. Some announcements were made this month. OK, no new plants were built in the last 3 weeks. You win.

mpweiher 3y ago

Why should I do that? The policy shift was announced was announced December 2nd of this year. So 26 days ago. And your counter is "so where are all the new nuclear plants, I don't see them". Seriously?

hef19898 3y ago
Glad we agree that so far there was no nuclear build out, anywhere! Edit: COP28 agreed on triplong renewable capacity to 11 TW by 2030. If we consider pledges for future NPPs, I think it is just fair to do the same when it comes to renewables, right?
- mpweiher 3y ago
  Also incorrect. There was quite a bit of nuclear built. For example France nuclearized its electricity grid. In the last 20 years, policy shifted away from nuclear and there was very little built. This hasn’t been in dispute in the least bit. Just now we have witnessed a policy shift by most countries where nuclear is or was relevant back towards nuclear. To argue that this policy shift hasn’t happened because we didn’t see its effects in the last 20 years seems weird, unless there was some important time travel news I missed. To argue that the policy shift hasn’t happened because we haven’t seen new nuclear plants pop up since the few weeks or months since the shifts happened and were announced is also…odd. And you seem to be under this impression that for nuclear to be built up, renewables must somehow be reduced. This is simply not the case.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    There was no real build out since the, what, 80s? And no projection I have found hinted at one in the future. If those policy changes are supossed to any effect by 2035, those new NPPs would have to be at least in planning stage by now, which they are not. Unless you assume all those future reactors are magically planned, approved, built and connected at a fraction of the time all others are. In which case, please specify how exactly that is aupposed to happen. Otherwise, all you have is claims, unfounded ones at that, and pipedreams.
    - mpweiher 3y ago
      The projections you read are the ones that precede the current policy shift. > If those policy changes are supossed to any effect by 2035 They are not. 2050 is the target date for tripling. > those new NPPs would have to be at least in planning stage by now, which they are not A lot of the policy changes just happened this year. Some announcements were made this month. OK, no new plants were built in the last 3 weeks. You win.