[noosphr]

If I have zero wives yesterday and one today, by next week I will need a new house for all my new wives.

Like I said in the original post:

>Even the people who understand the scale don't understand the purpose.

>The Chinese grid isn't renewable or non-renewable. It's built to keep the lights on for anything short of a thousand year catastrophe.

Only capitalists are so penny wise and pound foolish to bet their civilization on the lowest bidder while hoping the inevitable doesn't happen in the next quarter.

[dalyons]

I agree with you, china is building risk mitigation in a way that no one else is, and it will serve them well. However, in this thread I’m solely replying to your comment on the “24% nuke by 2060” plan. That particular plan is not going to happen any more, nuclear is not competitive enough, even for china.

[dyauspitr]

I disagree. They’re not going to go the battery energy storage route, instead they will just fill in intermittent gaps in renewable electricity production with nuclear as they ramp down coal.

[_aavaa_]

But where is the evidence to back up this 4D chess move? They have been failing to meet their nuclear roll out plans year after year? Why would they magically hit a ridiculously high goal of 24% by 2060?

[dyauspitr]

4D chess? This is not some memery. They’re essentially building out aiming for a 100% redundant capacity. Renewables and coal are much faster to build, nuclear takes longer (7 years for standardized ones, 10 for newer kinds).