[SCHiM]

The cost is a political problem. It's easier for the opponents of nuclear to find support for stricter and stricter safety laws for new reactors. Driving up the cost, making them economically nonviable. Meanwhile the older and far more dangerous reactors are rotting away and cannot be replaced (or are replaced with fossil fuels).

It's been pointed out again, again and again. Coal plants pump out more radioactive waste than is ever released by all the accidents to date, catching a plane will irradiate you more than living next to one, etc. etc.

[Retric]

If that where true China would happily jump on the nuclear bandwagon. Instead, they use minimal Nuclear because the basic cost of running a nuclear power plant reasonably safely can’t become really cheap.

Nuclear in China is 40.6 GW vs 290GW or so total power production. They are adding 14 GW but these things take time so the ratio will stay about the same. Meanwhile they are ramping up wind and solar extremely quickly with a stated goal of 1,300 GW of peak solar capacity by 2050 which they are on pace to reach. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China

[opo]

Your comparisons between power production of nuclear and solar is somewhat misleading since you are forgetting the low capacity factor of solar.

In terms of power production of solar in China:

>...The contribution to the total electric energy production remains modest[8] as the average capacity factor of solar power plants is relatively low at 17% on average. Of the 6,412 TWh electricity produced in China in 2017,[9] 118.2 TWh was generated by solar power, equivalent to 1.84% of total electricity production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China

In comparison:

>...Nuclear power contributed 3% of the total electricity production in 2015, with 170 TWh,[1] and was the fastest-growing electricity source, with 29% growth over 2014.[4

As far as long range plans in China:

>...By mid-century fast neutron reactors are seen as the main technology, with a planned 1400 GW capacity by 2100

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

In short, it looks like China is doing what any smart country is trying to do: develop all non-carbon based energy sources that they can.

[Retric]

First, however you want to slice it Nuclear is a low percentage of China’s production. Even nuclear + wind + solar is not that huge, still the trends are very promising.

But, I want to say that growth figure is misleading as it’s comparing as specific year when a power plant came online. In terms of total TWh and rate of increase wind beats nuclear. In terms of relative percentage increase Solar is insane.

  Solar 2013 9 TWh
  Solar 2017 118.2 TWh

  Nuclear 2013 124 TWh
  Nuclear 2017 246 TWh

  Wind 2013 134.9 TWh
  Wind 2017 305.7 TWh

Looking at 2018 Solar’s insane year over year growth is starting to have a huge impact and does not seem to be slowing down. In some ways even 2017 numbers are misleading.

  Solar, *capacity* added per year.
  2014	10,560
  2015	15,130
  2016	34,540
  2017	52,830

[WhompingWindows]

I disagree; politics are a small factor, but up-front capital costs are by far the bigger issue. The most salient example is South Carolina, where it was up-front construction costs that axed the project. They poured billions into the plant multiple times and it never was completed.

I'm all for advanced nuclear but it's never going to happen with such high start-up costs, especially outside of an authoritarian economy like China, which is basically the only country making major expansions to nuclear today. Maybe traveling wave or molten salt or modular reactors could be cheaper and better on fundamentals, but if the cost to start-up is still very high, the LCOE isn't going to beat renewables/storage in the medium/long term.

On top of this, look at energy widely. Demand is flat, old coal is shutting down, new renewables/storage and new-ish gas turbines are going to be online for a couple decades. Where is the payback potential for an expensive nuclear plant in a flat-demand environment? Renewables kill the wholesale cost to boot, so nuclear would be running a deficit in windy or sunny times. It's just hard to make the numbers work.

[selimthegrim]

I always wondered how they came up with that north of 30% interest rate for the financing for the rest of the project that caused them to abandon it. Probably the banks just saying FYAD politely.