3 ms·

Why do we need to look 50 years back when China is doing the same right now? Maybe we should start learning from them?

by usrnm 1y ago

alex_duf 1y ago
The article describes how France helped China reach that point. I did not know that.
yorwba 1y ago
France had their construction boom earlier, so they're ahead of the curve. The article suggests that the secret of cheap reactor construction is mostly economies of scale: if one reactor is too expensive, buy fifty instead. China has been reducing approvals for new reactors in recent years, to the point where the share of nuclear electricity generation is actually going down. Maybe 40 years down the line, they'll want to build just one more reactor to deal with increased demand and discover that the supply chain has atrophied so the project becomes an expensive boondoggle.
cycomanic 1y ago
Yes learning from China is banking on renewables. Their nuclear build out is behind schedule and the ambitions are being reduced because it makes so much more sense to build renewables. China added 277GWh of solar (45% increase) and 80 GW of wind (+18%) in 2024 compared to 3.9 GW of nuclear (+3%). While the percentage of nuclear power of overall electricity generation was increasing between 2012 and 2020 it is falling again. The national plan was for 200 GW of generation capacity from nuclear by 2035, that less than what was added from solar alone in 2024 and unlikely to happen (approved projects would add another 60 GW to the current 60 GW total in the next 5 years, but it is not clear if they will be build). Sources https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/china-installs-record-capacity-solar-45-and-wind-18-2024.html https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/chin... https://energyandcleanair.org/analysis-clean-energy-contributed-a-record-10-of-chinas-gdp-in-2024/ https://energyandcleanair.org/analysis-clean-energy-contribu... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
- seec 1y ago
  In your own sources they say +6,9% for nuclear (61GW) the three percent is for hydro, probably because they are maxed out in that matter like everyone else. The direct comparison of solar/wind nameplate capacity with nuclear is extremely dishonest. They NEVER reach full capacity even with favorable weather and it's absolutely not comparable to nuclear if you don't have at least a decent amount of storage built alongside. They are still using coal/gas predominantly (around 70%) so renewables are still peanuts. They are building solar/wind to supplement their other sources, since they can't build anything else fast enough. None of their other sources of electricity generation has gone down since they started investing in renewables. So, it's not replacing anything, and it still technically can't anyway. In any case, they have 1408GW of installed solar + wind that generated 1836080 GWh (1836 TWh) of energy and they have 61GW of installed nuclear capacity that generated 450850 GWh (450 TWh) of energy. So, their solar & wind installation is 23 times larger but only generates about 4 times the amount of electricity, that isn't even reliable. It doesn't matter if they hit a speed bump in their nuclear rollout, it doesn't have to be as fast to deploy as renewables because it fundamentally doesn't give you the same things. It is a true replacement for coal, which renewables aren't at this stage.

Why do we need to look 50 years back when China is doing the same right now? Maybe we should start learning from them?

by usrnm 1y ago

Why do we need to look 50 years back when China is doing the same right now? Maybe we should start learning from them?

alex_duf 1y ago

The article describes how France helped China reach that point. I did not know that.

yorwba 1y ago

France had their construction boom earlier, so they're ahead of the curve. The article suggests that the secret of cheap reactor construction is mostly economies of scale: if one reactor is too expensive, buy fifty instead. China has been reducing approvals for new reactors in recent years, to the point where the share of nuclear electricity generation is actually going down. Maybe 40 years down the line, they'll want to build just one more reactor to deal with increased demand and discover that the supply chain has atrophied so the project becomes an expensive boondoggle.

cycomanic 1y ago

Yes learning from China is banking on renewables. Their nuclear build out is behind schedule and the ambitions are being reduced because it makes so much more sense to build renewables. China added 277GWh of solar (45% increase) and 80 GW of wind (+18%) in 2024 compared to 3.9 GW of nuclear (+3%). While the percentage of nuclear power of overall electricity generation was increasing between 2012 and 2020 it is falling again. The national plan was for 200 GW of generation capacity from nuclear by 2035, that less than what was added from solar alone in 2024 and unlikely to happen (approved projects would add another 60 GW to the current 60 GW total in the next 5 years, but it is not clear if they will be build). Sources https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/china-installs-record-capacity-solar-45-and-wind-18-2024.html https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/chin... https://energyandcleanair.org/analysis-clean-energy-contributed-a-record-10-of-chinas-gdp-in-2024/ https://energyandcleanair.org/analysis-clean-energy-contribu... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

seec 1y ago
In your own sources they say +6,9% for nuclear (61GW) the three percent is for hydro, probably because they are maxed out in that matter like everyone else. The direct comparison of solar/wind nameplate capacity with nuclear is extremely dishonest. They NEVER reach full capacity even with favorable weather and it's absolutely not comparable to nuclear if you don't have at least a decent amount of storage built alongside. They are still using coal/gas predominantly (around 70%) so renewables are still peanuts. They are building solar/wind to supplement their other sources, since they can't build anything else fast enough. None of their other sources of electricity generation has gone down since they started investing in renewables. So, it's not replacing anything, and it still technically can't anyway. In any case, they have 1408GW of installed solar + wind that generated 1836080 GWh (1836 TWh) of energy and they have 61GW of installed nuclear capacity that generated 450850 GWh (450 TWh) of energy. So, their solar & wind installation is 23 times larger but only generates about 4 times the amount of electricity, that isn't even reliable. It doesn't matter if they hit a speed bump in their nuclear rollout, it doesn't have to be as fast to deploy as renewables because it fundamentally doesn't give you the same things. It is a true replacement for coal, which renewables aren't at this stage.