[adev_]

> Gas is the cleanest fossil fuel. Modern gas turbines are by far the most efficient way of generating electricity from fossil fuels.

The "Cleanest" is around 400g/kwh which is still very far from clean. It is around 20x more emissive that what Nuclear would give you.

But congratulations, you just described what was the German strategy for the previous 20 years. With a lot of pipelines connected directly to Russia (Because Germany does not have Gas) and with a very happy Vladimir.

And then the Ukrain-Russia war came. And the rest is history.

[hef19898]

Oh dear... Germany, and Europe, got gas from the USSR since the 70s (go on wikipedia and read about the state of affaires between NATO and the Warsaw Pact back then). Besides having a reliable, save, and cheap source for gas, this agreement kept incentives aligned and communications open. That startegy worked, until Putin decided to say "fuck it, I want Ukraine".

Since the war in Ukraine happened a year ago, and isn't over yet, the rest cannot be history. The problems with green houses gas emissions and enegry are souch older so, with the first measures being taken 20 odd years ago (too little, but better than nothing).

As always, people cry over spilled milk, what happened happened. Now we have a ton of options to deploy, nuclear power is not a feasible one (cost, time...). Organizations active in nuclear power agree, new projects aren't launched anymore. And the last one to be launched are delayed, and come in above cost, when planned cost already wasn't competitive.

Funny so, it took quite a while to reach the point of "Germany bad because gas financed Putin, nuclear power would have prevented that".

[adev_]

>Organizations active in nuclear power agree, new projects aren't launched anymore

Nuclear power plants projects are ongoing everywhere around the world [1].

Do note generalize Germany fanatical behaviour to the entire world, this is not representative.

[1]: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu...

[hef19898]

I explicity said elswhere that the devloping world is different, didn't I?

In the developed world, read western industrial nations, nuclear is launched anymore. Those legacy projects, Hinkley C or in Finland, run late and cost more than planned. And they a certainly more expensive than solar and wind. Nuclear is good for base load, the old inflexible kind, only. It is didficult to ramp up and down on short notice, making a grid less flexible the more nuclear is deployed. Hence all serious new capacity being either wind or solar. No idea why facta can be so ignored.

By the way, my opinion about the solar industry, makers and sellers of panels, is rather low, so I deffinitely don't cheer those guys up.

[adev_]

> In the developed world, read western industrial nations, nuclear is launched anymore

There is Korea, USA, France, UK, Slovakia and the UAE in the list.

In longer term, you can add Japan, Czeck Republic, Poland (under investigation) and even Italy is considering it right now.

You should certainly said to them that they are not part of your definition of the developed world.

> Nuclear is good for base load, the old inflexible kind, only. It is didficult to ramp up and down on short notice, making a grid less flexible the more nuclear is deployed

Good. The grid worked on good old inflexible based load for a century now and it prooved it works. Lets continue on that and make it low Carbon at the same time.

[hef19898]

Technically France is on that list here:

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-an...

With one reactor. Wow.

That being said, the majority are in Asia. The UAE have one under construction, they did install more solar capacity already.

Two Japanese ones are suspended. Which leaves China as the leader.

Just as a reminder: these are the capacities

Under Construction (grid connection, as of Nov. 2023, between 2023 and 2030): 68 GW

Planned: 109 GW

Proposed: 353 GW

Total: 630 GW

Solar capacity installed between 2018 and 2021: 500 GW

Solar capacity estimated to be installed until 2025: 1.3 TW

I hope that puts it into perspective with regards to where the money goes. Nuclear proponents are at risk of becoming a serious road block when it comes to a fast energy transition, even more so if they continue to ignore raw market numbers.

[kawhah]

In the UK, planning started on Hinkley Point in 2010. It was supposed to run at 3 TW by 2020, costing £24 per MWh. It's now 13 years into a process that is projected to complete in another 5 years, eventually producing energy for £90 per MWh.

In roughly the same period of time 30 TW of wind capacity have been installed. Even if you discount windfarm capacity at an aggressive 4:1, wind has already succeeded in producing 2.5 times what nuclear said it would be able to and failed at.

Onshore wind is being delivered at a per MWh cost below that of the new nuke, if it ever runs. The offshore cost is much lower still.