Edit: changed source from carbonbrief to reuters for a “actual news sources”
Nuclear power generation has a considerably smaller carbon footprint than fossil fuel plants, but can dispatch power more consistently and reliably than weather-dependent renewable sources such as wind or solar. Source post: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-approves-expansions-three-nuclear-power-plants-2023-08-01/
Other article with more information on China and nuclear power:
About CarbonBrief.org
Carbon Brief is a UK-based website covering the latest developments in climate science, climate policy and energy policy. We specialise in clear, data-driven articles and graphics to help improve the understanding of climate change, both in terms of the science and the policy response.
Source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/about-us/
China began building its first nuclear plant in 1985. The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES) estimates that it will have the world’s largest nuclear fleet by 2030.
For now, China is now the world’s second largest nuclear energy producer behind the US, having overtaken France in 2020. By the end of June 2023, China had an installed capacity of 57 gigawatts (GW), according to official data.
China remains behind the 96GW installed in the US – for now. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says China is the “world’s fastest expanding nuclear power producer”.
(The International Energy Agency estimates that electricity from nuclear power costs $65 per megawatt hour (MWh) compared with $105/MWh in the US and $140/MWh in the EU.)
Zhi agrees with this assessment. Coal power is getting increasingly expensive, “especially due to carbon pricing and other environmental fees”, he says.
He wrote that the “guaranteed tariff paid to producers for nuclear power…has been higher than the rate for either coal-fired or hydroelectric power”. He also quoted a Chinese nuclear industry executive, who said in 2015: “We watch this carefully…if the government were to take this away from us, the future of our business would be in a lot of trouble.”
The WNA points out that safety questions have slowed China’s nuclear ambitions. Following the Fukushima Daiichi accident, China temporarily suspended approvals of new power plants, to review concerns over safety and river pollution, according to Andrews-Speed.
Edit: changed source from carbonbrief to reuters
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says China is the “world’s fastest expanding nuclear power producer”.
i.e. the only country taking the limits of fossil fuels seriously.
Eh nuclear doesn’t make sense everywhere - my country doesn’t have any nuclear reactors but most of our power generation is free from fossil fuels as we primarily use hydro, geothermal, and a bit of wind!
It does look like it, but remember they also have power outage problems due to not having enough storage of energy, according to this article.
Not sure how credible it is, due to it being Greenpeace…
China’s central economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission, released a five-year plan in March, aiming to develop energy-storage capacity to boost renewable power consumption. In the first half of 2023, new energy storage could drive direct investment of 30 billion yuan (US$4.2 billion), according to data released by China’s National Energy Administration.
“Energy storage is a top concern for China,” said Greenpeace’s Gao. “It’s not just about building up a new power supply. It’s about designing a system that will meet electricity demand.”
You mixed up China with Norway, right?
You mean the country with the sovereign oil fund?
Nigeria?
It’d be nice if Niger could provide them with uranium for nuclear power instead of having it all siphoned away by France.
i thought that a bunch of other african nations were going to invade and claim those resources for themselves? eh, yeah, France will likely get it all anyway
No, AFRICOM and its partners will invade and reclaim those resources for whitey. No African nation will be allowed to benefit.
liberals on suicide watch
deleted by creator
Uh, no? Most of us are fine with this, actually.
The liberal label has no meaning to the best of my knowledge, IMO.
I do not even know who they would consist of: Bidenites?, blue dogs?, blue not matter who peeps, voter shammers?
Or just people like how Bernie Sanders/AOC were like 4+ years ago or now? Voting for war and just going along with corp. blue dogs without too much a fight.
Feedback would be appreciated because I am lost when I hear liberal.
Or is it a general term of lefty people…
Liberal used to mean something completely different, now it’s meant to disparage left-leaning people for either not being left enough or being too left.
Yeah, thats what happens with politics and labels.
Hard to keep track of what is what and the jargon, which makes it even harder for the lay person to follow.
In the end, it is just another way to divide us, instead of coming together along class lines.
comon folk vs. wealthy.
Workers vs. Rich,
Have nots vs Haves
It is just two groups.
I think part of the issue is we’re kind of taking about two different words here.
Liberal as in someone who believes in economic neoliberalism generally means someone who supports free-market capitalism in some form. This is what socialists/communists generally mean when they’re insulting someone for being a liberal online.
Liberal, in the US political sense, has also changed to mean something more like socially liberal that “considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class).” Which is what people I think mean when they say conservatives vs. liberals in the US, or when self-described progressive dems/democratic socialists will still claim to be very liberal or in favor of liberal policies.
