Posts by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
(DIR) Post #ArZC2L3ixFkF2LowO8 by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T18:16:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @dacig I guess they already know: China is also hedging its bets mostly on regenerative electricity. While they do build new reactors, those are barely enough to replace the ones they are phasing out.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2M7f06UIKqfbA8 by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T18:30:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @dacig Those absolute numbers are kind of ignoring the scale of the country and the stellar growth of its energy needs. If you look at the projected numbers for installed capacity of renewables vs nuclear you will find that i am in fact correct: renewables are their main solution, nuclear is just a side gig.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2NDiv2vpjwVxFg by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T20:11:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@MisuseCase @yogthos @dacig They mostly want to make sure they can still *export* nuclear reactors to anyone who wants them.And of course, China is - just like any country that sticks to nuclear energy - motivated by producing the material for nuclear weapons, which is a side project of nuclear reactors.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2OQWQwlPTvVgq8 by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T22:26:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig I can tell that you did not read the article i recommended. They are very much NOT REALLY building them for domestic supply of their energy. Otherwise you'd see a development not unlike you see with the renewables.The reality is that nuclear is exceptionally bad at handling surges. Take it from someone who studied that shit in Uni.A nuclear PP will need more than 12h to go from 50% to 100%, or vice versa. A gas plant needs about 4h. A battery needs seconds.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2P2o8bO9OfQGW0 by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T22:37:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig Since you probably missed it the first time, this article is pretty insightful:https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/12/nuclear-continues-to-lag-far-behind-renewables-in-china-deployments/
(DIR) Post #ArZC2QmDhFJAlng2wC by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T18:33:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @dacig See this graph for a comparison of the orders of magnitude:https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2023-figure68_nukere_china_prodallre_2000_2022.pdf
(DIR) Post #ArZC2R8CNWtBrxxbCC by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T22:50:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig Indeed, people are trying to fit the facts to their narrative, in this case especially the nuclear industrial complex ;)The fact is: renewable and nuclear do NOT work well together (complimentary), on the contrary, nuclear is the worst possible kind of electricity generation that you could pair renewables with. I already explained why: It sucks at changing demand situations and is therefore unable to compensate the inherently fluctuating nature of renewables.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2SOtevq9o2mRrU by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T23:14:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig Just to clarify, i repeat myself: i studied that shit in Uni. So you can safely assume that i did think about the problem *rationally* for maybe a couple of more moments than, say, you for example.I just explained why they do NOT work well together. There is no "sustained baseline power" need that would have to be met. That`s a very old misconception. There is a power need, and for 99% of the time it can be fully met by renewables with about 12h worth of batteries.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2TkCfCTfyPkyi8 by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T23:36:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig No, actually, there are no experts in the field i am aware of that would claim that nuclear works well together with renewables.The "sustained baseline power" is not actually a technical term either but instead used exclusively by publications that adhere to less-then-scientific standards, to say it carefully.And no, Chinese experts have NOT come to a different conclusion, which is why, again, renewables are developing exponentially while nuclear is NOT.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2Ujsxrol3icEr2 by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T01:02:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig Look, i am not convinced that IS the actual strategy, but even if it is, it does not change the simple facts i just explained to you.And it is not personal, in fact there are obviously a lot of thing i agree with you on in other issues, but i am getting pretty tired of explaining basics of a field i actually studied (as in: went to Uni for) to someone who believes they know better and does not want to learn.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2VV28ZX1PwftLM by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T18:49:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @dacig You also might be interested in this article:https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/12/nuclear-continues-to-lag-far-behind-renewables-in-china-deployments/
(DIR) Post #ArZC2VgjR4tC0E9EZs by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T02:43:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig That very link you gave me spoke of 19, not 150 new reactors. There is no Thorium reactor online, those are experimental prototypes (two, to be exact) and it remains to be seen if they are even actually working as designed. China is sciencing the shit out of everything remotely interesting, so why wouldn't they look into this, too. They ARE doubling down on renewables since years. Which is what "exponential growth" means and they do NOT do it with NPP.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2WdZuHxcwjgEIi by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T03:03:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig The cnnpn link you supplied mentions 19 being built at the moment.Both numbers are meaningless without the context of the plants being phased out tho.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2WpzA9sxZDU8dk by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T23:17:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig for the remaining 1% of time there are clever solutions needed, the dreaded "Dunkelflaute" (little sun AND wind at the same time) is pretty rare as soon as you look at sufficiently large networks. But there does remain a need for about a week of buffer that needs to be guaranteed.But nothing there has anything to do with Nuclear Power, which is much too inflexible to function as an equalizer of renewables.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2Xs9JbD6mDVNeS by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T03:12:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig It is a tiny expansion comparing it to their renewable expansion, and that is on a very low baseline.Remember: 3x 2 is a LOT less then 30x20.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2YpLlUZ7jpCevY by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T03:26:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig A number you have not yet provided an official source for, and that even if true would still be just a fifth. The remaining 80% would be renewable, and THAT is the part that already WORKS RIGHT NOW and is developing at exponential speeds.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2a4H9U6BaPC5pY by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T03:40:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig Okay, kindly point out where you have supplied an official source for that. (No, a private nuclear corp is not one.)Bloomberg would never write half-truth about China, is that your argument there?
(DIR) Post #ArZC2agupp0VWFGx3g by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T03:42:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig "Both nuclear and renewables are working in China right now."Yes. One is pretty much stuck to a very low single digit percentage, the other one is developing exponentially. But i guess you could summarize that as "both working right now" if you really wanted, but that wasn't what i meant with it.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2cQgN9D6uTh128 by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T04:06:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig THIS is the simple, actual, measurable, FACTual reality that YOU refuse to accept:
(DIR) Post #ArZC2hRDkZc0Raz14C by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T04:09:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig But yes, there is no point in continuing this, because you refuse to accept the reality of Chinas approach AND my basic explanations of relevant technical facts because it contradicts the belief that the nuclear lobby has planted into you - and could easily do so because you lacked the basic knowledge to recognize their bullshit.