5 ms·

> How would you "statistically show" a reevaluation that is in process? > You obviously can't evaluate by the outcomes, because the reevaluation is still in pr

> How would you "statistically show" a reevaluation that is in process? > You obviously can't evaluate by the outcomes, because the reevaluation is still in process, and in this particular case outcomes in terms of power to grid take at least 3 years after you have finished evaluating and started building. And sometimes a bit longer. And of course you do have plants reaching their end of life during that time, so you might not see a net positive total for a bit. > On the other hand, 22 countries just pledged to triple nuclear output by 2050 at COP28, so just a little over a month ago. That's a significant departure and includes countries that were getting out of nuclear power altogether, like Japan. It also includes all of the G7 except Germany and Italy. > https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-decla... Just goes to show how strong the nuclear lobby is. Building out nuclear does not make economic or environmental sense. With the price trajectories of solar, wind are on we should be investing everything into renewables and research into storage to reduce required overprovisioning. > Yes, China is going for renewables. That's because China goes for everything. Including more coal. Yes, they are building out renewables, but that's because they have little to none at present, so they are still at a stage where adding more renewables won't destabilize the grid. What are you talking about? China had a third of worldwide installed solar in 2020 (250GW)[1]. In 2023 that had more than doubled to 530 GW [2] and that is accelerating (for 2024 they are projecting another 230 GW). > They are also massively expanding their nuclear fleet, with no fewer than 20 (twenty!) reactors currently under construction and another 70 currently being planned. That's a tripling of what they have now. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China So China has 57 GW of nuclear and want to get to 200 GW by 2035 (while also having missed their 2020 goal of 58 GW [3]). They are adding more solar every year than that every year. That just shows how completely disproportionate the economics are. The recently approved nuclear power plants (which get to 70GW i think) cost $80 billion [4]compared to $140 billion in solar which gets you 230 GW. I am willing to bet a significant amount that China will get nowhere close to 200GW nuclear by 2035. A side note it's funny how you state that China does not have any renewables why making nuclear sound like a huge part of their grid, while in reality just the installed solar capacity is 10 times that of nuclear. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China [2] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-lead-global-renewable-growth-with-record-installations-woodmac-2023-11-28/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-... [3]https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-starts-up-worlds-first-fourth-generation-nuclear-reactor-2023-12-06/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-starts-up-worlds-f... [4]https://thediplomat.com/2022/09/powering-chinas-nuclear-ambitions/ https://thediplomat.com/2022/09/powering-chinas-nuclear-ambi...

mpweiher 3y ago
"This is happening" "It's not, where is the evidence" "Here" "Just goes to show how strong the nuclear lobby is." Er no. The nuclear "lobby" is incredibly weak, which is why, against all reason, Germany shut off perfectly fine nuclear power plants and almost all the world barely built any nuclear in the last 20 years. However, reality is now starting to assert itself again. China solar is 5%, wind a little more than that. Coal is at around 60%. At those levels adding more unreliable energy to the mix is OK. But you also need stable baseload power, which is why they are also massively expanding their nuclear capacity. It's not a competition, we want all clean energy to stave of climate change, and we'll also almost certainly need additional energy to get all that CO2 out of the atmosphere again. Solar and wind is great for consumers that are OK to be turned off. But a lot of electricity consumption in an industrialized society isn't like that, particularly if we're also going to electrify a lot of the other primary energy consumption, for example heating. I'd rather not have to turn off my heater in winter because it's dark and there's little wind.

mpweiher 3y ago

"This is happening" "It's not, where is the evidence" "Here" "Just goes to show how strong the nuclear lobby is." Er no. The nuclear "lobby" is incredibly weak, which is why, against all reason, Germany shut off perfectly fine nuclear power plants and almost all the world barely built any nuclear in the last 20 years. However, reality is now starting to assert itself again. China solar is 5%, wind a little more than that. Coal is at around 60%. At those levels adding more unreliable energy to the mix is OK. But you also need stable baseload power, which is why they are also massively expanding their nuclear capacity. It's not a competition, we want all clean energy to stave of climate change, and we'll also almost certainly need additional energy to get all that CO2 out of the atmosphere again. Solar and wind is great for consumers that are OK to be turned off. But a lot of electricity consumption in an industrialized society isn't like that, particularly if we're also going to electrify a lot of the other primary energy consumption, for example heating. I'd rather not have to turn off my heater in winter because it's dark and there's little wind.