[cyberax]

> There seems to be a delusional part of the Internet that is convinced that nuclear is the only future, and solar and wind aren’t.

"Exponentially more" means literally nothing. 1 is also an exponent.

China is building literally everything. It's also a geographically diverse country, with wide ranges of different climates. Solar is appropriate for Hainan, but makes little sense for Harbin.

[tfourb]

Have a Look at the statistics, before nitpicking. Solar and wind dwarfs nuclear in China and increasingly so.

[ForOldHack]

"Once again, China's nuclear program barely added any capacity, only 1.2 GW, while wind and solar between them added about 278 GW."

Dwarfs is the most apt description. (~250x)

[cyberax]

Nope. The devil is in the details.

You're looking at the nameplate capacity. However, for solar the actual capacity factor can be anywhere from 10-25% of that. So you're looking anywhere from ~25-70GW of the average capacity. Nuclear reactors can operate at 90-95% capacity factors.

And the unsolved problem is storage. Right now, solar can partially replace natural gas and, to a lesser extent, coal.

[tfourb]

Even considering the capacity factor solar and wind still grows by 60x compared to nuclear. And storage is no longer an „unsolved problem“. You could manage the current grid with current chemical battery technology, levelized cost of electricity of that solution is cheaper than nuclear. And foreseeable technical advances will improve that while no comparable development is on the horizon for nuclear.

The real tricky thing will be stuff like chemical processes that depend on hydrocarbons, but nuclear is no help for that.

Nuclear didn’t deliver on an every revolution in the 50s and it won’t today. It’s nice for submarines and to have an industrial base to build bombs but it inherently can’t solve the world’s energy demands.

[cyberax]

> And storage is no longer an „unsolved problem“.

Yes, it is an unsolved problem. Even adding 8h backup battery puts solar on par with nuclear: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf (nuclear's capital costs are around $4000/kW).

And seasonal storage (enough energy to last for 2-3 weeks without sun/wind) does not even have a price tag, because it simply doesn't exist.

> And foreseeable technical advances will improve that while no comparable development is on the horizon for nuclear.

Nope. Renewables have comprehensively failed in providing a viable replacement for nuclear power. There is no reasonable pathway ahead with the current technologies for renewables to replace the reliable baseline generation.

It doesn't mean that solar/wind are useless, they work great in cases where the load can be shed, and in warm climates where electricity demand is not so critical.

[matthewdgreen]

BESS and solar are not on par with nuclear for several reasons: (1) there is a much faster construction pathway for solar+BESS than nuclear, (2) costs of both PV solar and BESS continue to go down every year, while nuclear doesn't have the same cost curve, (3) manufacturing capacity for solar and BESS continue to rise on the exponential piece of an S-curve (meaning, a consistent multiplicative increase every year) while nuclear construction rates don't look anything like that.

There is a root cause for this: both solar PV and battery storage can be mass-produced in factories, and current nuclear tech can't. If nuclear can get onto a similar growth trajectory, we'll be cooking.