Shhh, don't disturb the pro-nuke narrative with 'facts'. Elsewhere in this thread they try to blame regulations. US regulations don't apply in China and Russia, but they can't make it economic either.
I'm happy with NRC. I think they are doing their job. I'd rather NRC be too conservative than have a Fukushima or Chernobyl event.
But nuclear is just technology. There is no fundamental reason for nuclear technology to not be 10 times or 100 times cheaper. In particular the naval nuclear reactors appear to be quite inexpensive. And keep in mind, they are designed to be able to work in conditions of combat (hopefully they won't need to). If someone were to just build them on land, they could be cheaper still.
I (along with almost all pro-nuke guys) am not pro-expensive-nukes. I'm pro-cheap-nukes. But refusing to even consider nukes is a perfect way to never get cheap nukes.
Oh, and by the way, I'm really happy that solar and wind are cheap and getting cheaper. Solar energy generation has increased by about 20% or more every year for the last decade (except for one year). I really think the trend will continue.
The idea that investing in nuclear technology is taking away money from renewables is just silly. In 2021 more than $100 billion were invested in renewables in the US. The investments in nuclear are simply insignificant compared to that.
China is planning to build 150 reactors by 2035, and has not then doubled the nuclear share in a decade, so economic or not, there's evidently some appeal there.
To put it in numbers (actual production per year, not capacity) [1] [2]:
China nuclear 2010: 75 TW/h
China nuclear 2021: 408 TW/h (+333 TW/h)
Worldwide nuclear: 2768 => 2800 (+32 TW/h)
China solar 2010: 0.7 TW/h
China solar 2021: 327 TW/h (+326 TW/h)
Worldwide solar: 34 => 1033 (+999 TW/h)
Luckily, nuclear doesn't really care about solar, since they complement each other perfectly (wind is a different story and it is already much bigger than nuclear).
However, China is a country that is pretty much perfect for nuclear: Little unnecessary regulation, no green party, expertise in nuclear technology, and excellence in constructing large scale construction projects.
So if nuclear is getting overtaken by solar even in China, then I don't see how it will be able to compete in the west against wind and solar.
The annual increase in renewable generation in China is now many times that of the annual increase in nuclear generation. Starting at 2010 leads to an underestimate of the renewables' current velocity advantage over nuclear there.
The article suggested that the west should "compete with the two leaders in global nuclear construction: Russia and China"
to "not only decarbonize, but bring greater prosperity to the world".
So I wanted to show that even if the west emulated China by slashing regulation, outlawing the greens, and dramatically increased our skill at huge construction projects, we still would focus far more on renewables than on nuclear.
(I ignored Russia, because they produce most of their electricity with fossil fuels, and only 18% with nuclear, which is probably not something the west wants to emulate [1]).
I'm happy with NRC. I think they are doing their job. I'd rather NRC be too conservative than have a Fukushima or Chernobyl event.
But nuclear is just technology. There is no fundamental reason for nuclear technology to not be 10 times or 100 times cheaper. In particular the naval nuclear reactors appear to be quite inexpensive. And keep in mind, they are designed to be able to work in conditions of combat (hopefully they won't need to). If someone were to just build them on land, they could be cheaper still.
I (along with almost all pro-nuke guys) am not pro-expensive-nukes. I'm pro-cheap-nukes. But refusing to even consider nukes is a perfect way to never get cheap nukes.
Oh, and by the way, I'm really happy that solar and wind are cheap and getting cheaper. Solar energy generation has increased by about 20% or more every year for the last decade (except for one year). I really think the trend will continue.
The idea that investing in nuclear technology is taking away money from renewables is just silly. In 2021 more than $100 billion were invested in renewables in the US. The investments in nuclear are simply insignificant compared to that.