The saddest part of this all is that countries are going to be amping up their local coal production, not for a massive nuclear transition, but to keep their lumbering economies chugging along in a circle jerk.
They've already made net 0 promises on the basis of technology that doesn't yet exist. They'll claim power crisis will be solved by some 'fusion breakthrough' or something equally inane. (Which they won't fund at any meaningful level anyway)
On a different note, what (if anything) do you think it will take for the world to accept nuclear as a safe and viable source of energy? I didn't know about the stress test of the containers, but I would have thought that a Apple-like demo of such things would boost public confidence in such things.. Maybe some billionaire building one in his backyard might do it?
Well we're still dealing with lots of vested interests in solar and wind, so those will first need to be destroyed (simply due to profit incentives) before the mainstream is willing to change. High profile people taking a stand would greatly help, but at this stage, we're so invested in renewables that it's going to take ages for anybody to actually admit it was a mistake.
It'll probably take a cycling of the leadership or two, atleast. Or people would have to start demonstrating for nuclear in the same numbers they've been demonstrating against the vax passes.
I would also think that some level of breakdown, as well as an honest assessment of that breakdown could shake people out of their well developed ideological perspectives. I see it here locally, despite the evidence of certain ideological based approaches leading to more crime, campsites in parks and on the streets and people fleeing for better places to live - people seem to vote for the same thing over and over again.
Why arent you mentioning the massive build up of the chinese nuclear fleet ? Its somewhat likely they will add more and more constructions every year starting right now.
From wikipedia, 2020
8 NPPs are estimated to begin construction PER YEAR.
Right now 16 NPPs are under construction, with 45 more planned.
Most of these are meant to generate approx 1.1 GW
So they are adding lets say 10 GW on a year to year basis.
That would be 100 GW per decade, assuming the rate stays that way, which is substantial.
Its also not considering the fact that as more plants are constructed, expertise probably cuts down build time as well as build cost.
When you demand China should quadruple their NNP build out, you forget that they cant do it right now, else they probably would.
But in a decade, i can easily see the buildout being widened, as construction times, cost and possibly technology enhancements make it easier.
Also you discount SMRs.
Anything else is right or i assume it is, but i wanted to weigh on the nuclear subtheme of your post.
I would read the post again more carefully :) The numbers are there, and 100GW a decade is not going to be enough by a long long shot, not just for China. Which is my point.
Easy math innit? 150 per 15 years is 300 in 30, and they need to replace 1080gw in 35 (it's also about 150GW planned).
Also that bloomberg report has been public information for a while. It's well known on Uranium Twitter they're building+planning this much. I genuinely already took that into account before it came out.
My point is; *that still needs to be quintupled* if you take expansion of energy use at the same time into account, plus 4x300 to pass 1080+the new plants they're building now.
The saddest part of this all is that countries are going to be amping up their local coal production, not for a massive nuclear transition, but to keep their lumbering economies chugging along in a circle jerk.
They've already made net 0 promises on the basis of technology that doesn't yet exist. They'll claim power crisis will be solved by some 'fusion breakthrough' or something equally inane. (Which they won't fund at any meaningful level anyway)
On a different note, what (if anything) do you think it will take for the world to accept nuclear as a safe and viable source of energy? I didn't know about the stress test of the containers, but I would have thought that a Apple-like demo of such things would boost public confidence in such things.. Maybe some billionaire building one in his backyard might do it?
Well we're still dealing with lots of vested interests in solar and wind, so those will first need to be destroyed (simply due to profit incentives) before the mainstream is willing to change. High profile people taking a stand would greatly help, but at this stage, we're so invested in renewables that it's going to take ages for anybody to actually admit it was a mistake.
It'll probably take a cycling of the leadership or two, atleast. Or people would have to start demonstrating for nuclear in the same numbers they've been demonstrating against the vax passes.
I would also think that some level of breakdown, as well as an honest assessment of that breakdown could shake people out of their well developed ideological perspectives. I see it here locally, despite the evidence of certain ideological based approaches leading to more crime, campsites in parks and on the streets and people fleeing for better places to live - people seem to vote for the same thing over and over again.
Thank you Deso! Great read, educational and also dang funny in places, really appreciate your work!
Why arent you mentioning the massive build up of the chinese nuclear fleet ? Its somewhat likely they will add more and more constructions every year starting right now.
From wikipedia, 2020
8 NPPs are estimated to begin construction PER YEAR.
Right now 16 NPPs are under construction, with 45 more planned.
Most of these are meant to generate approx 1.1 GW
So they are adding lets say 10 GW on a year to year basis.
That would be 100 GW per decade, assuming the rate stays that way, which is substantial.
Its also not considering the fact that as more plants are constructed, expertise probably cuts down build time as well as build cost.
When you demand China should quadruple their NNP build out, you forget that they cant do it right now, else they probably would.
But in a decade, i can easily see the buildout being widened, as construction times, cost and possibly technology enhancements make it easier.
Also you discount SMRs.
Anything else is right or i assume it is, but i wanted to weigh on the nuclear subtheme of your post.
I would read the post again more carefully :) The numbers are there, and 100GW a decade is not going to be enough by a long long shot, not just for China. Which is my point.
China is planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35 trib.al/W8IAs74.
Easy math innit? 150 per 15 years is 300 in 30, and they need to replace 1080gw in 35 (it's also about 150GW planned).
Also that bloomberg report has been public information for a while. It's well known on Uranium Twitter they're building+planning this much. I genuinely already took that into account before it came out.
My point is; *that still needs to be quintupled* if you take expansion of energy use at the same time into account, plus 4x300 to pass 1080+the new plants they're building now.
Wow, first time here and I am blown away by the detailed observation and insight. Subscribed