China will spend $370 billion building nuclear reactors over the next decade

[ScienceRocks]

China will spend $370 billion building nuclear reactors over the next decade
Next Big Future China will spend 370 billion building nuclear reactors over the next decade

China approved two reactors this month as it vowed to cut coal use to meet terms of a carbon-emissions agreement reached in November between President Xi Jinping and U.S. counterpart Barack Obama. About $370 billion will be spent on atomic power over the next decade, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates. Plans to triple nuclear capacity by 2020 to as much as 58 gigawatts.

“China is in a race with itself to reach a nuclear-power goal set for 2020 that’s concurrent with a coal-reduction plan,” Tian Miao, an analyst at North Square Blue Oak Ltd., a London-based researcher, said in Beijing. “Because it normally takes five years to build one reactor, the program needs to be ramped up from now on.”

As America declines...China is moving upwards and playing a perfect hand.

 

[Nutz]

You should move there...I hear there are some real cheap tickets

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We could do that here. Instead, idiot liberals will push us to waste multiples of that on solar.

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar and wind are not only not a waste, they are the future for a goodly percentage of our power. Solar provided less than 1/2% of percent of our power in 2013, last year, it provided over 1%. Wind is at present cheaper than dirty coal, and solar is in 1/2 cent per kilowatt of dirty coal, and coming down steadily.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Solar and wind are not only not a waste, they are the future for a goodly percentage of our power. Solar provided less than 1/2% of percent of our power in 2013, last year, it provided over 1%. Wind is at present cheaper than dirty coal, and solar is in 1/2 cent per kilowatt of dirty coal, and coming down steadily.

Solar provided less than 1/2% of percent of our power in 2013, last year, it provided over 1%.

Wow! Over 1% and less reliable than nuclear. I know which one I'd vote for.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, WOW! over 1%. At the present rate of increase, it will be the primary generator of electricity in less than a decade. An at far less cost than nuclear. With no environmental damage, and no GHGs. At a cost less than that of dirty coal. And will create a distributed grid less vulneable to disasters, natural or manmade.

 

[Old Rocks]

CHART: The Falling Price of Solar PV by U.S. Sector

Solar Power on the Rise The Technologies and Policies behind a Booming Energy Sector 2014 Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar has a decided advantage over conventional generation. You don't need water for steam for turbines. It is scalable, from a kilowatt installation to hundreds of megawatts. It is quick to build, and there is no danger from producing the electricity.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Nuclear's great. Until it isn't. Then it really sucks. But coal plants suck from day 1.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, WOW! over 1%. At the present rate of increase, it will be the primary generator of electricity in less than a decade. An at far less cost than nuclear. With no environmental damage, and no GHGs. At a cost less than that of dirty coal. And will create a distributed grid less vulneable to disasters, natural or manmade.

At the present rate of increase

LOL! You funny!
Tell you what, if solar is the primary source of electricity (over 50%) by 2025, I'll give you $100.

With no environmental damage

You must have a very narrow definition of damage.

 

[DGS49]

(1) Without heavy subsidies nobody would be wasting their time or money on solar or wind, which are only viable if there is an alternate source of baseline energy. The sun don't shine at night, and the wind comes and goes. Ask any sailor.

(2) The Chinese contract with Westinghouse Electric gives them the right to re-use the technology ad infinitum. Westinghouse was truly hard up when the contract was signed, and made this insane concession out of necessity.

(3) The Westinghouse AP1000 design (PWR) would have eliminated 90% of the problems at Fukushima Daiichi (BWR) because the reactor automatically continues cooling even when the power goes out (using the heat energy).

(4) U.S. nuclear power is twice dead because of (a) cheap natural gas, and (b) hyper-neurotic regulations that have increased the cost of building a nuke plant beyond any rational justification. It will take heavy subsidies to bring the latest technology (Small Modular Reactors) into the marketplace.

(5) In 60+ years of commercial nuclear power in the U.S., not a single person has died of any radiation-related illness or accident. Not one. Retired nuclear plant workers have a lower incidence of all cancers than the general population.

(6) Anyone who even uses the expressions, "carbon pollution," or "dirty coal" is an idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

China will spend $370 billion building nuclear reactors over the next decade
Next Big Future China will spend 370 billion building nuclear reactors over the next decade

China approved two reactors this month as it vowed to cut coal use to meet terms of a carbon-emissions agreement reached in November between President Xi Jinping and U.S. counterpart Barack Obama. About $370 billion will be spent on atomic power over the next decade, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates. Plans to triple nuclear capacity by 2020 to as much as 58 gigawatts.

“China is in a race with itself to reach a nuclear-power goal set for 2020 that’s concurrent with a coal-reduction plan,” Tian Miao, an analyst at North Square Blue Oak Ltd., a London-based researcher, said in Beijing. “Because it normally takes five years to build one reactor, the program needs to be ramped up from now on.”

As America declines...China is moving upwards and playing a perfect hand.

Eco-kooks like you are the only ones obstructing the construction of nuclear power plants.