[chickenchicken]

Yeah and a multiple of that in renewables

[Koemul]

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.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#nuclear-energy-gen... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy#solar-energy-gen...

[pfdietz]

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.

[Koemul]

Exactly.

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]).

[1] https://www.worldometers.info/electricity/russia-electricity...).