France returns to being an exporter of electricity

[Mart]

That's made me think about American nuclear. They have about 100 ageing reactors, but only 2 new reactors under construction. They were building 4, but a few years ago, despite having already spendt $bn's, they cancelled two of them mid build as they would never be economic, and therefore unable to compete in a future market.

The other two are due to start supplying power now(ish), but years behind schedule (started 2009, for 2017 completion), and over 2x budget. There are ~8 other licences issued for new reactors, but none are expected to be completed.

[dan_b]

Let's see what they're doing in China...

They currently have
55 plants operational with a capacity of 57GW (which is about 5% of their total demand!!)
24 nuclear power plants under construction with a combined capacity of 26.8 GW.
and more than 70 others planned for an additional 88GW of capacity.

[Moxi]

America - Private investment
China - State investment

I don't think it will be too long before China will be reviewing the Nuclear fleet numbers downwards either - it will be interesting to watch what happens at the next change of head of state.

Moxi

[Mart]

Hiya Moxi, you may be interested in this article from late last year. It's pretty short, nothing contentious, but a nice summary of how nuclear is developing/changing around the World.

The last paragraph mirrors your comments:

Looking ahead, nuclear will likely continue its stable development trajectory in China given its role as an essential, low-cost solution to decarbonize the economy. In Europe, however, if further development projects are to be considered in the future, significant government support in the form of financing and a robust regulatory framework will be crucial.

And I have to admit, I was completely unaware of India's revision to their nuclear plans, where they have recently reduced the plans set 12yrs ago by 2/3rds. But, this reminds me of their coal plans, which were horrific back in the early 2010's, but were rapidly dialed back, as RE costs fell, and they upped their wind and PV plans instead.

[Silly point, but I've always felt that the biggest win of the expensive FiT schemes, operated by many wealthier western countries, was to 'head em off at the pass' so to speak, by bringing RE costs down far enough, and fast enough, to allow poorer countries to go RE instead. So UK (et all) subsidies have had a wider impact on CO2(e) emissions than our relatively poor PV generation, may at first suggest.]

Nuclear Power Is Declining in the West and Growing in Developing Countries

In the face of rising gas and energy prices, nuclear energy could provide an important solution to both decarbonization and concerns about security of supply. Yet capacity is declining in the U.S. and Europe, while China has ambitious plans for nuclear expansion.

In light of escalating energy prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and the EU’s resultant pledge to reduce its reliance on Russian gas under its REPower EU plan — Europe is placing an increasing focus on security of energy supply.

In some countries, this pressure could lead to greater support for nuclear power. Indeed, earlier this year, the European Parliament approved the labeling of nuclear as green under its EU Taxonomy — highlighting its value as a zero-carbon energy source.

Yet, we expect nuclear power generation in Europe and the U.S. to decline. By 2035, the share of nuclear generation in the EU and the U.S. is expected to reduce to 15% from close to 20%, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights.

[Mr Gus]

The reality needs stating to cut through the "nuclear is green" bullshit in that.

This PR for nuclear industry spin-w@nkers needs..

A dedicated gun toting "nuclear police force on 24-7.

A nuclear train for transportation of now deemed "green" materials, with an accompanying troop of aforementioned nuclear police protection.

Secure (terrorist event planned) sites + armed nuclear police security.

Specialist storage & disposal 30, 60, 90+ years after the original site has gone.

Just how many drugs have been collectively taken & palms greased to get to this "green energy crap" status?

..its like a "Trump Truth" slide into stupidsville. ..baffle em with enough b.s. that some will stick regardless. ..if that becomes an accepted methodology then may as well cease repairs on parliment & load it with high explosives & system gaming politicians prior to detonation.

[dan_b]

We do need to understand that doing anything on an industrial process won't be truly and utterly "green". If we use that yardstick we might as well all go back to living in the sea. Hence the talk of embedded carbon for building "green tech" like wind turbines and EVs etc. And of course the same applies to civilian nuclear electric power generation. There's a colossal amount of embedded energy and associated emissions in their construction, running, and de-commissioning. But there's no doubt that when they are generating, they produce a gargantuan amount of energy that hasn't required stuff to be burned.

But as we've said many many times on this forum - nuclear power is as much a strategic, technical, political and geopolitical technology as it is a rational, low-cost zero carbon power source. And as we will continue to debate on here, is difficult to know whether or not it's a good thing long-term to build new capacity. But certainly for plants that already exist, they should be operated to extract every possible GWh.

[Mr Gus]

Do you p1ss in a pint pot & sell it as beer though dan?
And should you?

Regardless of your intelligence to be able to see other reasons, there's joe public ill educated "stupid" believing what they are told, too thick to understand.

Thus, it needs calling what it is.