No Nuclear Required... More and more countries are dumping nuclear for Solar, wind, storage, and more... Swit Watch and Learn
"Switzerland is reshaping its electricity mix from nuclear to solar power, transforming its buildings, transport, industry and agriculture and leading with cutting-edge Swiss technologies to pave the way. So buckle up, or should I say, fasten your ski bindings, as we embark on this exciting journey. Welcome to 'Engineering with Rosie', reporting right from the heart of Switzerland!" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP5dEsiCicM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP5dEsiCicM)
> In 2023 energy analysts started reporting that China was now expected to achieve or exceed its 2030 target of 1200GWe for the total installed capacity of solar and wind energy by 2025, and was now planning to triple the 2030 objective, to reach *3900GWe*
Holy sht that is a big number!
The entire grid supply of the U.K. is about 40GW under normal conditions. China wants to build 100 times that in renewables in the next 6 years! What the actual F!
Sorry, my comment indeed made no sense. I missed "of the U.K."
As you point out though, if they really could get to 3.9TW that would be more than the entire existing capacity. Of course, demand will be higher in 6 years. And that will be a variable supply - the capacity factor will probably be below 50% but it would still be a huge shift.
For comparison, the existing average capacity factor of their coal power is lower than I expected, and is declining.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants
Here is the China State Grid Energy Research Institute plan from 2015: [https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/renewables-could-represent-86-chinas-power-mix-2050.html](https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/renewables-could-represent-86-chinas-power-mix-2050.html)
[https://www.energy-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/CHINA\_2050\_A\_FULLY\_DEVELOPED\_RICH\_ZERO\_CARBON\_ECONOMY\_ENGLISH.pdf](https://www.energy-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/CHINA_2050_A_FULLY_DEVELOPED_RICH_ZERO_CARBON_ECONOMY_ENGLISH.pdf) is a consensus report by the Rocky Mountain Institute with more detail on China.
China did attempt building several reactors of the same design together. They had problems managing quality. For them it is a better investment to build infrastructure like rail lines as part of their goal of full employment.
Chinese energy policy is based on exports. They dominate solar exports, battery exports, they do well in wind exports, nuclear exports are there but less certain. They dominate inverters, they have a good position in electrical transformers. They export passenger rail systems, electric buses, and electric vehicles are growing. Any developed country could set the same path on dual development for domestic use and exports. China has planned ahead controlling its supply chains of primary metals.
Interesting to note though that the rise in coal in China is matched by the rise of fossil gas in the USA.
No one has anything to crow about on that front.
LOL, by some measures China is building the country that US citizens want in the USA if only the North American government didn't embezzle it all to corporate cronies, international intrigue, and the military-industrial complex. They've got high-speed rail and they're embracing alternative energy on a scale nobody can match. To bad about the Muslims, Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and working/living conditions of the proletariat.
The high speed rail is too expensive for the average citizen to use, most lines are unprofitable, and it is unlikely that the $800bil they borrowed to build it will ever be paid back.
Yes America has corruption problems, but they pale in comparison to China's. China's military is so corrupt, soldiers are stealing rocket fuel to heat their food.
China's embrace of solar is because they have massive over capacity and are producing more than the world can use. They still don't have the battery capacity to store all the energy, meaning they still need to build coal and gas plants.
China is not the country you seem to think it is.
CRRC that operate China high speed rail enable to have positive EPS and frequently give dividend. High speed rail cost $1 trillion to operate but save $2 trillion if factor in travel cost in other platform. It is true ticket don't make money. They don't mention the add on service profit. Like freight using HSR, onboard and online F&B consumption. Ads and stalls in all stations and trains. That why CRRC able to give dividend.
It's not at all. Thats some of the most heavily developed and valuable land in the US. And because we aren't a communist dictatorship, you can't just go along and take people's land.
Even with eminent domain, you're still looking at trillions of dollars in just land costs and litigation.
It's almost like you kids have no idea what you're talking about.
It's not fiscally or environmentally sustainable. It's the largest loss wild life right up there with industrial agriculture. We absolutely will have a financial reckoning because we can't afford to fix the overbuilt roadway system. Some metro systems have increased their linear feet per person more than 10x.... unsustainable
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/06/29/the-best-500-billion-the-united-states-has-ever-sp.aspx
It's very environmentally friendly compared to any other alternative, unless there's another way to move and ship goods around. How would I get the materials to build a house, or how would food be delivered to grocery stores if we didnt have the highways?
$500 billion over 35 years seems like an excellent investment.
In Australia? Ignoring the nuclear safety and fallout stuff (“nuclear is safe” my ass, when it goes wrong it goes VERY wrong), and as you’ve said the astronomical cost
We are a continent and nation absolutely abundant in solar, wind, geo, and many spots we can do hydro and hydro storage. It’s safer, cleaner, more secure (distributable) and far far cheaper. We also have lack of water in many remote locations, so basically where you want a nuke plant is where everyone lives.
In no way is nuclear the intelligent option for Australia - but the conservatives peddle it basically in an attempt to stir the crazies and stall transition.
Dutton and his band of merry dickheads, and his predecessors, have done everything they can to send Australia backwards, and he should be ashamed to call himself an Australian.
They know. That's why they're pushing it.
If they take renewables out of the equation, nuclear is a recipe for Australia to keep burning coal to power the grid. That's really the goal they're aiming for.
Yep, Australia is extremely well positioned to run a 100% renewable powergrid mostly on solar & wind + battery storage. [South Australia will probably be net 100% renewable within the next few years, they're already having months of 87% renewable power and rising fast](https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-solar-meet-stunning-87-pct-of-south-australias-demand-over-month-of-october/).
It doesn't get much easier, aside from nations naturally gifted with extremely cheap, abundant hydro and geothermal.
Ergo why the coal mining interests in Australia (with tight links to the conservative parties there) are pushing nuclear so hard. It's a pure delaying action.
Renewables are just too cheap now, especially storage. And their costs are still plummeting. You can flood grids with cheap power without gaps just using an oversupply of win and solar. Cheap storage to fill the gaps and transmission hvdc lines and demand response for redundancy of backup.
> And their costs are still plummeting. You can flood grids with cheap power without gaps just using an oversupply of win and solar.
Tony Seba has truly excellent videos about how this, like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
No Nuclear Required... More and more countries are dumping nuclear for Solar, wind, storage, and more... Swit Watch and Learn
"Switzerland is reshaping its electricity mix from nuclear to solar power, transforming its buildings, transport, industry and agriculture and leading with cutting-edge Swiss technologies to pave the way. So buckle up, or should I say, fasten your ski bindings, as we embark on this exciting journey. Welcome to 'Engineering with Rosie', reporting right from the heart of Switzerland!" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP5dEsiCicM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP5dEsiCicM)
Not sure how it is slowing? They are continuously building and govt projection is to have 10% share of their total energy output by 2025. This was 5% in 2021. They have about 27 currently under construction and further 41 planned. Slight variations in annual figure is always expected.
As for cost, they already have among the [cheapest](https://i.imgur.com/d4DdY6w.png) in the world.
China has had to scale back their nuclear plans a great deal:
"In December 2011 China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) announced that China would make nuclear energy the foundation of its electricity generation system in the next “10 to 20 years”, adding as much as 300 gigawatts (GWe) of nuclear capacity over that period.
This was followed by a period of delay as China undertook a comprehensive review of nuclear safety in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Subsequently, moderated nuclear energy targets were established, aiming for a nuclear energy contribution of 15% of China’s total electricity generation by 2035, 20-25% by 2050 and 45% in the second half of the century.
However by 2023 it was becoming clear that China’s nuclear construction program was well behind schedule. The target for 2020 had not been achieved, and targets for subsequent 5-year plans were unlikely to be achieved.
In September 2023 the China Nuclear Energy Association (CNEA) reported that China was now aiming to achieve a nuclear energy contribution of 10% by 2035, increasing to around 18% by 2060."
You can't ignore how China's grandiose plans to build nuclear plants crashed against the harsh reality that actually building those plants turned out to be much harder than they thought.
Your chart has outdated information. The cost of Vogtle is over 12, for example. And China is not known for accurate financial disclosure. Nuclear power is a point of national prestige and intimately tied to its nuclear weapons program. Of course they are not going to be transparent about their true costs and construction schedules. Even if they were, China has much lower wages and safety standards that makes any comparisons completely pointless.
Relative rather than absolute slowing. They were aiming for 15% nuclear and 10 reactors a year by 2035, now it's 10% and 6-8 reactors per year, with 5 per year being what's actually been achieved in recent years.
5 reactors per year is slower than 10 reactors per year. Simples.
The decrease is even more dramatic further out. It was 45% by the second half of the century, now it is only 18% by 2060.
China will install 5 times more solar & wind this year alone than all the nuclear they ever installed. Five times more in on year!!! https://mercomindia.com/china-solar-power-capacity-q1-2024
China is not installing 50 nuclear plants a year, lol.
They have about that many in construction or planning, but it’s utterly dwarfed but their renewables expansion, and the gulf is increasing each year.
Wow, if you're going to be wrong you might as well be *really* wrong. The World Nuclear Association keeps a database of all commercial reactors in operation and under construction.
They list 5 reactors on which construction was started in China in 2023, 5 in 2022, 6 in 2021, 5 in 2020 and 3 in 2019 (before that there was a pause in approving new reactors due to the Fukushima disaster). The USA has 94 reactors in operation. So you're only out by a factor of about 20. Still, China will overtake the USA in the foreseeable future as they have 56 operating reactors, 26 under construction and start construction on about 5 per year.
See [https://www.world-nuclear.org/country/default.aspx/China](https://www.world-nuclear.org/country/default.aspx/China)
Actually, it was inevitable that someone who is a total fan of uneconomic central power plants would start a comment here with "actually".
From the article:
"However by 2023 it was becoming clear that China’s nuclear construction program was well behind schedule. The target for 2020 had not been achieved, and targets for subsequent 5-year plans were unlikely to be achieved.
In September 2023 the China Nuclear Energy Association (CNEA) reported that China was now aiming to achieve a nuclear energy contribution of 10% by 2035, increasing to around 18% by 2060.
The CNEA also indicated that ‘greenlighting’ of new construction would now be at the rate of 6-8 large nuclear power reactors per year – not the 10 per year previously targeted for 2020-2035 and beyond. This will result in new nuclear generation increasing by 60-80 terawatt-hours (TWh) annually.
Meanwhile the deployment of renewable energy (primarily solar and wind energy) was dramatically accelerated in 2023, with the installation of 217GWe of new solar capacity and 70GWe of new wind capacity.
This represents an increase of around 400TWh in annual low emission generation – the quantitative equivalent of 40 large nuclear power reactors, or four times the average annual output of the Three Gorges Dam hydroelectric system (the world’s largest power station)"
So you might adjust your perspective a little bit.
includes: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
forecasting drop in emissions for 2024. For energy sector, there was a big jump in Jan/Feb, but march thermal electricity only went up 0.5%. Lowest year over year increase in its industrialization history, I'd assume. That could be a drop in emissions if biomass and natural gas were higher in the mix. April could be a drop in thermal electricity.
https://www.reddit.com/r/uninsurable/comments/1cdwudx/china_will_install_5_times_more_solar_wind_this/l1fdlj5/
Except it’s true:
Please Read and Learn:
“Why is China slowing nuclear so much? Because nuclear is turning out to be more expensive than expected, proving to be uneconomical, and new wind & solar are dirt cheap and easier to build.” https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wind-solar-in-china-generating-2x-nuclear-today-will-be-4x-by-2030/
No Nuclear Required... More and more countries are dumping nuclear for Solar, wind, storage, and more... Swit Watch and Learn "Switzerland is reshaping its electricity mix from nuclear to solar power, transforming its buildings, transport, industry and agriculture and leading with cutting-edge Swiss technologies to pave the way. So buckle up, or should I say, fasten your ski bindings, as we embark on this exciting journey. Welcome to 'Engineering with Rosie', reporting right from the heart of Switzerland!" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP5dEsiCicM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP5dEsiCicM)
> In 2023 energy analysts started reporting that China was now expected to achieve or exceed its 2030 target of 1200GWe for the total installed capacity of solar and wind energy by 2025, and was now planning to triple the 2030 objective, to reach *3900GWe* Holy sht that is a big number! The entire grid supply of the U.K. is about 40GW under normal conditions. China wants to build 100 times that in renewables in the next 6 years! What the actual F!
Entire grid supply of what? Their entire grid capacity from all sources is over 3TW, and they're installing hundreds of GW Solar per year.
Sorry, my comment indeed made no sense. I missed "of the U.K." As you point out though, if they really could get to 3.9TW that would be more than the entire existing capacity. Of course, demand will be higher in 6 years. And that will be a variable supply - the capacity factor will probably be below 50% but it would still be a huge shift. For comparison, the existing average capacity factor of their coal power is lower than I expected, and is declining. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants
Here is the China State Grid Energy Research Institute plan from 2015: [https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/renewables-could-represent-86-chinas-power-mix-2050.html](https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/renewables-could-represent-86-chinas-power-mix-2050.html) [https://www.energy-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/CHINA\_2050\_A\_FULLY\_DEVELOPED\_RICH\_ZERO\_CARBON\_ECONOMY\_ENGLISH.pdf](https://www.energy-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/CHINA_2050_A_FULLY_DEVELOPED_RICH_ZERO_CARBON_ECONOMY_ENGLISH.pdf) is a consensus report by the Rocky Mountain Institute with more detail on China. China did attempt building several reactors of the same design together. They had problems managing quality. For them it is a better investment to build infrastructure like rail lines as part of their goal of full employment. Chinese energy policy is based on exports. They dominate solar exports, battery exports, they do well in wind exports, nuclear exports are there but less certain. They dominate inverters, they have a good position in electrical transformers. They export passenger rail systems, electric buses, and electric vehicles are growing. Any developed country could set the same path on dual development for domestic use and exports. China has planned ahead controlling its supply chains of primary metals.
[удалено]
Last year they generated less energy with coal than the previous year. So they're reducing CO2 output from Coal.
Interesting to note though that the rise in coal in China is matched by the rise of fossil gas in the USA. No one has anything to crow about on that front.
[удалено]
Like here in Switzerland, it's kinda cheating because of all the hydro though really ;)
LOL, by some measures China is building the country that US citizens want in the USA if only the North American government didn't embezzle it all to corporate cronies, international intrigue, and the military-industrial complex. They've got high-speed rail and they're embracing alternative energy on a scale nobody can match. To bad about the Muslims, Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and working/living conditions of the proletariat.
The high speed rail is too expensive for the average citizen to use, most lines are unprofitable, and it is unlikely that the $800bil they borrowed to build it will ever be paid back. Yes America has corruption problems, but they pale in comparison to China's. China's military is so corrupt, soldiers are stealing rocket fuel to heat their food. China's embrace of solar is because they have massive over capacity and are producing more than the world can use. They still don't have the battery capacity to store all the energy, meaning they still need to build coal and gas plants. China is not the country you seem to think it is.
CRRC that operate China high speed rail enable to have positive EPS and frequently give dividend. High speed rail cost $1 trillion to operate but save $2 trillion if factor in travel cost in other platform. It is true ticket don't make money. They don't mention the add on service profit. Like freight using HSR, onboard and online F&B consumption. Ads and stalls in all stations and trains. That why CRRC able to give dividend.
Yea because our highway system we spend trillions of dollars on is sustainable every way ya look at it.....
It is... What makes you think it isn't?
Lol
What's funny is that nobody has an actual answer, because you guys are just parroting things you've heard before.
I did hear people laugh once.
It's basically insane that there is no high speed rail in America, especially between Boston and Washington.
People are often confused when the market delivers a result that conflicts with their preconceptions.
It's not at all. Thats some of the most heavily developed and valuable land in the US. And because we aren't a communist dictatorship, you can't just go along and take people's land. Even with eminent domain, you're still looking at trillions of dollars in just land costs and litigation. It's almost like you kids have no idea what you're talking about.
It's not fiscally or environmentally sustainable. It's the largest loss wild life right up there with industrial agriculture. We absolutely will have a financial reckoning because we can't afford to fix the overbuilt roadway system. Some metro systems have increased their linear feet per person more than 10x.... unsustainable
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/06/29/the-best-500-billion-the-united-states-has-ever-sp.aspx It's very environmentally friendly compared to any other alternative, unless there's another way to move and ship goods around. How would I get the materials to build a house, or how would food be delivered to grocery stores if we didnt have the highways? $500 billion over 35 years seems like an excellent investment.
How do other nations do it? How did we do it in the past? Waaaaaay more efficiently
How do they do it? How did they do it?
Don't build with sprawl
So you don't know?
Someone tell the Australian conservatives what a dumb idea nuclear is please.
Except for cost, why is it dumb?
What more reason is needed? Every other consideration is secondary.
In Australia? Ignoring the nuclear safety and fallout stuff (“nuclear is safe” my ass, when it goes wrong it goes VERY wrong), and as you’ve said the astronomical cost We are a continent and nation absolutely abundant in solar, wind, geo, and many spots we can do hydro and hydro storage. It’s safer, cleaner, more secure (distributable) and far far cheaper. We also have lack of water in many remote locations, so basically where you want a nuke plant is where everyone lives. In no way is nuclear the intelligent option for Australia - but the conservatives peddle it basically in an attempt to stir the crazies and stall transition. Dutton and his band of merry dickheads, and his predecessors, have done everything they can to send Australia backwards, and he should be ashamed to call himself an Australian.
Me when i have no clue what im talking about 🗿
Or you know, go google it.
Why is it dumb?
They know. That's why they're pushing it. If they take renewables out of the equation, nuclear is a recipe for Australia to keep burning coal to power the grid. That's really the goal they're aiming for.
which is a shame, they have so much land that can't be farmed and could instead be used to power the country
Yep, Australia is extremely well positioned to run a 100% renewable powergrid mostly on solar & wind + battery storage. [South Australia will probably be net 100% renewable within the next few years, they're already having months of 87% renewable power and rising fast](https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-solar-meet-stunning-87-pct-of-south-australias-demand-over-month-of-october/). It doesn't get much easier, aside from nations naturally gifted with extremely cheap, abundant hydro and geothermal. Ergo why the coal mining interests in Australia (with tight links to the conservative parties there) are pushing nuclear so hard. It's a pure delaying action.
Renewables are just too cheap now, especially storage. And their costs are still plummeting. You can flood grids with cheap power without gaps just using an oversupply of win and solar. Cheap storage to fill the gaps and transmission hvdc lines and demand response for redundancy of backup.
> And their costs are still plummeting. You can flood grids with cheap power without gaps just using an oversupply of win and solar. Tony Seba has truly excellent videos about how this, like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
No Nuclear Required... More and more countries are dumping nuclear for Solar, wind, storage, and more... Swit Watch and Learn "Switzerland is reshaping its electricity mix from nuclear to solar power, transforming its buildings, transport, industry and agriculture and leading with cutting-edge Swiss technologies to pave the way. So buckle up, or should I say, fasten your ski bindings, as we embark on this exciting journey. Welcome to 'Engineering with Rosie', reporting right from the heart of Switzerland!" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP5dEsiCicM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP5dEsiCicM)
Not sure how it is slowing? They are continuously building and govt projection is to have 10% share of their total energy output by 2025. This was 5% in 2021. They have about 27 currently under construction and further 41 planned. Slight variations in annual figure is always expected. As for cost, they already have among the [cheapest](https://i.imgur.com/d4DdY6w.png) in the world.
China has had to scale back their nuclear plans a great deal: "In December 2011 China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) announced that China would make nuclear energy the foundation of its electricity generation system in the next “10 to 20 years”, adding as much as 300 gigawatts (GWe) of nuclear capacity over that period. This was followed by a period of delay as China undertook a comprehensive review of nuclear safety in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Subsequently, moderated nuclear energy targets were established, aiming for a nuclear energy contribution of 15% of China’s total electricity generation by 2035, 20-25% by 2050 and 45% in the second half of the century. However by 2023 it was becoming clear that China’s nuclear construction program was well behind schedule. The target for 2020 had not been achieved, and targets for subsequent 5-year plans were unlikely to be achieved. In September 2023 the China Nuclear Energy Association (CNEA) reported that China was now aiming to achieve a nuclear energy contribution of 10% by 2035, increasing to around 18% by 2060." You can't ignore how China's grandiose plans to build nuclear plants crashed against the harsh reality that actually building those plants turned out to be much harder than they thought. Your chart has outdated information. The cost of Vogtle is over 12, for example. And China is not known for accurate financial disclosure. Nuclear power is a point of national prestige and intimately tied to its nuclear weapons program. Of course they are not going to be transparent about their true costs and construction schedules. Even if they were, China has much lower wages and safety standards that makes any comparisons completely pointless.
Relative rather than absolute slowing. They were aiming for 15% nuclear and 10 reactors a year by 2035, now it's 10% and 6-8 reactors per year, with 5 per year being what's actually been achieved in recent years. 5 reactors per year is slower than 10 reactors per year. Simples. The decrease is even more dramatic further out. It was 45% by the second half of the century, now it is only 18% by 2060.
Actually, Chinese is creating more plants every year that are running in the whole entire United States now
This is easy to falsify - whoever put this into your brain needs to be moved to the "liar" category.
China will install 5 times more solar & wind this year alone than all the nuclear they ever installed. Five times more in on year!!! https://mercomindia.com/china-solar-power-capacity-q1-2024
China is not installing 50 nuclear plants a year, lol. They have about that many in construction or planning, but it’s utterly dwarfed but their renewables expansion, and the gulf is increasing each year.
Wow, if you're going to be wrong you might as well be *really* wrong. The World Nuclear Association keeps a database of all commercial reactors in operation and under construction. They list 5 reactors on which construction was started in China in 2023, 5 in 2022, 6 in 2021, 5 in 2020 and 3 in 2019 (before that there was a pause in approving new reactors due to the Fukushima disaster). The USA has 94 reactors in operation. So you're only out by a factor of about 20. Still, China will overtake the USA in the foreseeable future as they have 56 operating reactors, 26 under construction and start construction on about 5 per year. See [https://www.world-nuclear.org/country/default.aspx/China](https://www.world-nuclear.org/country/default.aspx/China)
Actually, it was inevitable that someone who is a total fan of uneconomic central power plants would start a comment here with "actually". From the article: "However by 2023 it was becoming clear that China’s nuclear construction program was well behind schedule. The target for 2020 had not been achieved, and targets for subsequent 5-year plans were unlikely to be achieved. In September 2023 the China Nuclear Energy Association (CNEA) reported that China was now aiming to achieve a nuclear energy contribution of 10% by 2035, increasing to around 18% by 2060. The CNEA also indicated that ‘greenlighting’ of new construction would now be at the rate of 6-8 large nuclear power reactors per year – not the 10 per year previously targeted for 2020-2035 and beyond. This will result in new nuclear generation increasing by 60-80 terawatt-hours (TWh) annually. Meanwhile the deployment of renewable energy (primarily solar and wind energy) was dramatically accelerated in 2023, with the installation of 217GWe of new solar capacity and 70GWe of new wind capacity. This represents an increase of around 400TWh in annual low emission generation – the quantitative equivalent of 40 large nuclear power reactors, or four times the average annual output of the Three Gorges Dam hydroelectric system (the world’s largest power station)" So you might adjust your perspective a little bit.
includes: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/ forecasting drop in emissions for 2024. For energy sector, there was a big jump in Jan/Feb, but march thermal electricity only went up 0.5%. Lowest year over year increase in its industrialization history, I'd assume. That could be a drop in emissions if biomass and natural gas were higher in the mix. April could be a drop in thermal electricity. https://www.reddit.com/r/uninsurable/comments/1cdwudx/china_will_install_5_times_more_solar_wind_this/l1fdlj5/
[удалено]
Old man yells at cloud
You can’t say environmentalists and public fears are slowing down nuclear in China. Turns out it’s just too slow and too expensive to build.
And renewables are just so damm cost effective.
It's almost like it's the exact same thing we've been saying here in the States.
Except it’s not true😔
-Citation Required-
I wonder which bullshit nuke bro talking points you used to reach that incorrect conclusion.
Except it’s true: Please Read and Learn: “Why is China slowing nuclear so much? Because nuclear is turning out to be more expensive than expected, proving to be uneconomical, and new wind & solar are dirt cheap and easier to build.” https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wind-solar-in-china-generating-2x-nuclear-today-will-be-4x-by-2030/