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?
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.
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?
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.
Wow, first time here and I am blown away by the detailed observation and insight. Subscribed