China and Russia dominate nuclear power push with 90% of new reactors
China and Russia dominate nuclear power push with 90% of new reactors
Beijing, Moscow expand influence through development and exports to emerging countriesStaff Writer (Nikkei Asia)
like this
SGGeorwell
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •☂️-
in reply to SGGeorwell • • •eldavi
in reply to SGGeorwell • • •Ooops
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •Funny story.
And now give us numbers how those "dominance in nuclear upbuild" compares to power production in general...
folaht
in reply to Ooops • • •ghost_laptop
in reply to Ooops • • •Ooops
in reply to ghost_laptop • • •I did not mention the US (who are just now trying very hard to become a failed state anyway) but was talking about other power production. No one but lobbyists still riding the dead horse that is nuclear power is caring for who dominates in construction of new reactors when that's a very small fraction of added production capacity, globally as well as in China.
Making yet another story about some "big push for nuclear" when it's actually just varying levels of stagnation and decline while renewables show exponential growth is either colossally stupid of bullshit propaganda.
Not that those fairy tales about a nuclear future with renewable upbuild collapsing any day now are new as we all should know by now:
::: spoiler ...
:::
pineapple
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •ChokingHazard
in reply to pineapple • • •pineapple
in reply to ChokingHazard • • •My information is coming from Australia, where nuclear energy was heavily pushed by the fossil fuel industry (mainly because it would take like 30+ years for the first power plant to be in operation allowing them to expand coal and gas power plants in the meantime.) even though several reports where made debunking these claims and showing how horrible of an idea it would be to build nuclear energy for so many reasons including it's incredibly high price tag (these same documents showed how renewable energy is generally the cheapest.)
Maybe this is only the case in Australia.
PowerCrazy
in reply to pineapple • • •pineapple
in reply to PowerCrazy • • •Cost still matters, especially if renewable energy is cheaper and has the same emissions.
I am not supporting capitalism by saying that cost still matters. If socialist states didn't care about cost when building stuff they would have all dissolved long ago.
Anyway I very well may be wrong that nuclear is expensive. It is likely just expensive in Australia which is where I live and were I have done my research on (Since Aussie maga has been pushing hard for nuclear energy recently)
Allero
in reply to pineapple • • •Nuclear power is non-intermittent and can be used pretty much anywhere. With a push for small-scale reactors, there's a good chance for smaller places to get their own nuclear power plant, reducing stress on the national grid, and for power plants to be constructed in a much shorter timeframe.
Also, both Russia and China have floating nuclear power plants that can be transported to regions with water access on demand.
Solar and wind are cool, and quite cheap by themselves, but energy storage is a massive and expensive headache and limited placement options mean the grid should be robust enough to accommodate them with minimal power losses.
pineapple
in reply to Allero • • •Interesting. I think it must be just Australia that would have to pay a lot for nuclear energy. I guess other countries have ways of producing it more cheaply.
besides that wind and solar will be the only option soon enough once we run out of uranium and other radioactive reserves. Unless fusion catches up.
Allero
in reply to pineapple • • •Australia has plenty of insolation and most power consumers are packed densely enough not to worry about the upkeep of large grids.
Aside from uranium, we also have a much more plentiful thorium to use as a fission fuel. We definitely are not running out of that. But, thorium power plants can be more expensive, and byproducts of thorium cycle are less valuable, so it's worth comparing that to running a renewables-based grid again.
pineapple
in reply to Allero • • •PowerCrazy
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •God I want a nuclear reactor in my literal backyard.
Fortunately I live in Illinois the state that has over 50% of it's power provided by Nuclear, the most in the nation. (As of 2024, Illinois generates 53.62% of electricity from nuclear power, 31.10% from fossil fuels (comprising of coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), and 15.28% from renewables (comprising of wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass)). It will be nice to get the renewable mix up too, but in the meantime I'm quite happy. Electricity isn't the cheapest, but it surely is the cleanest which is the only thing that actually matters.
cleanenergy.illinois.gov/track…
Electricity Generation Mix
cleanenergy.illinois.govCyberMonkey403
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •