I misremembered/misunderstood from an interview I watched on the subject a while ago. In any case, it's hardly a lie but an imprecision at most.
It seems they have hit a bump in the rollout but it could also related to data gathering / grid connection. Unless you know an expert in the field in China you are just speculating about things you clearly don't know (because you objectively can't).
Then you are nitpicking for a fraction of a percent, which is beyond retarded and is subject to data choice/error. I don't remenber where I found the original data (probably the wiki for nuclear in China) but here is another source contraticting your bullshit.
https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/chin...
Clearly nuclear gained almost 7% capacity, so you are just stupidly wrong.
No I don't have any stake in the nuclear industry, not that it matters or make any difference.
I'm just more pragmatic and fully realise that renewable aren't sufficient in the short-medium term. Germany that has started rollout a long time ago still has more than 10 years to go to even be able to cover their current needs and that's before even talking about the storage needs. They also have very low penetration of electric residential heating (precisely because their high electricity cost) and will be extremely reliant on fossil fuel for the forseable future. Their economy has tanked in part because the rising costs of their fossil fuel inputs and they import quite a lot of electricity.
Meanwhile France with it's "terrible" nuclear power is net exporter.
The funny thing is that I'm not saying we shouldn't do renewables, just that we also need to keep investing in nuclear, at the very least to insure minimal base load for the bad weather periods.
You are clearly a believer of the neo-liberal bullshit with it's absurd focus on costs that pretends everything needs to make a profit in monetary terms. It's just shortsighted nonsense that is largely irrelevant at the level of industrial planning for a country. By this measure we should also stop any military nuclear programm and all kinds of stuff that are not directly profitable like fundamental research. You do not realise that a basic need like reliable access to electricity being paid by taxes is a benefit to the society and potential industries it allows. At the same time you conveniently ignore the fact that Germany subsidize it's "green" energy way beyond what it cost France to build it's nuclear fleet. This is fully reflected in the difference in price of electricty between the two countries and that's after Germany went out of its way to sabotage the too competitive nuclear industry by political corruption (like for example the partnership with Siemens for the buildout of Flamanville which is one of the primary reason for it being so late/expensive).
You are just a troll, an ideologically driven political activist spouting random talking points without any coherent view of the complete problem. That is the reason I do not wish to pursue more argumentation, you clearly can't realise how crude your discourse is.
That being said, it doesn't even matter what some zealots like you believe, thankfully policy makers aren't taking advice from random shitposter and there is definitely a renewed interest and planning for nuclear power, basically everywhere. So you can cry about it but I don't even care about proving my point because it will be the de facto choice, since there aren't any other one as things stand at the moment.
> The funny thing is that I'm not saying we shouldn't do renewables, just that we also need to keep investing in nuclear, at the very least to insure minimal base load for the bad weather periods.
Which tells me you don't understand how the grid works. Why should someone with rooftop solar and a home battery buy your extremely expensive nuclear powered electricity when they are swimming in their own?
Well. They don't. Meaning capacity factors crater.
Should we calculate what running Flamanville 3 at a 40% equivalent capacity factor costs?
We are now somewhere around 35 cents per kWh excluding transmission cost.
Then three paragraphs of personal attacks to round it off because the nuclear logic does not compute.
It seems they have hit a bump in the rollout but it could also related to data gathering / grid connection. Unless you know an expert in the field in China you are just speculating about things you clearly don't know (because you objectively can't).
Then you are nitpicking for a fraction of a percent, which is beyond retarded and is subject to data choice/error. I don't remenber where I found the original data (probably the wiki for nuclear in China) but here is another source contraticting your bullshit. https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/chin... Clearly nuclear gained almost 7% capacity, so you are just stupidly wrong.
No I don't have any stake in the nuclear industry, not that it matters or make any difference. I'm just more pragmatic and fully realise that renewable aren't sufficient in the short-medium term. Germany that has started rollout a long time ago still has more than 10 years to go to even be able to cover their current needs and that's before even talking about the storage needs. They also have very low penetration of electric residential heating (precisely because their high electricity cost) and will be extremely reliant on fossil fuel for the forseable future. Their economy has tanked in part because the rising costs of their fossil fuel inputs and they import quite a lot of electricity. Meanwhile France with it's "terrible" nuclear power is net exporter.
The funny thing is that I'm not saying we shouldn't do renewables, just that we also need to keep investing in nuclear, at the very least to insure minimal base load for the bad weather periods.
You are clearly a believer of the neo-liberal bullshit with it's absurd focus on costs that pretends everything needs to make a profit in monetary terms. It's just shortsighted nonsense that is largely irrelevant at the level of industrial planning for a country. By this measure we should also stop any military nuclear programm and all kinds of stuff that are not directly profitable like fundamental research. You do not realise that a basic need like reliable access to electricity being paid by taxes is a benefit to the society and potential industries it allows. At the same time you conveniently ignore the fact that Germany subsidize it's "green" energy way beyond what it cost France to build it's nuclear fleet. This is fully reflected in the difference in price of electricty between the two countries and that's after Germany went out of its way to sabotage the too competitive nuclear industry by political corruption (like for example the partnership with Siemens for the buildout of Flamanville which is one of the primary reason for it being so late/expensive).
You are just a troll, an ideologically driven political activist spouting random talking points without any coherent view of the complete problem. That is the reason I do not wish to pursue more argumentation, you clearly can't realise how crude your discourse is.
That being said, it doesn't even matter what some zealots like you believe, thankfully policy makers aren't taking advice from random shitposter and there is definitely a renewed interest and planning for nuclear power, basically everywhere. So you can cry about it but I don't even care about proving my point because it will be the de facto choice, since there aren't any other one as things stand at the moment.