> China currently builds more renewables than nuclear. I said it is irrelevant. Those are different things
No: nuclear and renewables are electricity-generating equipment types, and all the debate is about the proportion of renewables and nuclear in the final system. Seeing them as disconnected (in different universes) is not even funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg
> unless you don't understand the irrelevance of nameplate capacity with intermittent renewables.
This perspective dates back a time when transporting electricity was expensive (lines, losses...), storing it also was expensive ( ), fossil fuels and nuclear were the only way to obtain gridpower... all this is obsolete. Explanations: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/25/will-renewable-energy-d...
> China is also currently seeing the bottom drop out of their renewables industry
Source? (I lived in China from mid-2017 to mid-2025) The renewables industry there is, as in nearly every nation, in much better state than nearly any other one.
> The EPR2 projects could not even have started in 2022, because he law that prohibits increasing nuclear capacity beyond the currently installed 63.2GW was only repealed in March 2023
Nope. This law stated about active production capacity, and never forbade any reactor-building project. The very first EPR (Flamanville-3) project was running while this law was instated (2015) and did not stop. It simply forbade it to start without other reactor with at least a total equivalent powerplate value to be shutdown.
> they still have to deal with a lot of the fallout of the failed "soft exit" policy.
No such thing as a "fallout": France was waiting for its first EPR since work started on the field (2007), it was due to launch a series, after being delivered in 2012, and albeit the project is a huge failure (12 years late, 23.7+ billion € spent with a budget of 3.3) it was not canceled. Moreover the huge 'Grand Carénage' project was not reduced. No reduction either on R&D budgets either (https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/politiques-publiques/energie-re... ) .
No "fallout", simply a massive failure (EPR Flamanville-3).
I already asked: who did hurt the nuclear industry, when, by doing (or not doing) what, what were the effects?
No: nuclear and renewables are electricity-generating equipment types, and all the debate is about the proportion of renewables and nuclear in the final system. Seeing them as disconnected (in different universes) is not even funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg
> unless you don't understand the irrelevance of nameplate capacity with intermittent renewables.
This perspective dates back a time when transporting electricity was expensive (lines, losses...), storing it also was expensive ( ), fossil fuels and nuclear were the only way to obtain gridpower... all this is obsolete. Explanations: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/25/will-renewable-energy-d...
> China is also currently seeing the bottom drop out of their renewables industry
Source? (I lived in China from mid-2017 to mid-2025) The renewables industry there is, as in nearly every nation, in much better state than nearly any other one.
> The EPR2 projects could not even have started in 2022, because he law that prohibits increasing nuclear capacity beyond the currently installed 63.2GW was only repealed in March 2023
Nope. This law stated about active production capacity, and never forbade any reactor-building project. The very first EPR (Flamanville-3) project was running while this law was instated (2015) and did not stop. It simply forbade it to start without other reactor with at least a total equivalent powerplate value to be shutdown.
Recent news: https://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/pas-d-epr2-en-service-...
> they still have to deal with a lot of the fallout of the failed "soft exit" policy.
No such thing as a "fallout": France was waiting for its first EPR since work started on the field (2007), it was due to launch a series, after being delivered in 2012, and albeit the project is a huge failure (12 years late, 23.7+ billion € spent with a budget of 3.3) it was not canceled. Moreover the huge 'Grand Carénage' project was not reduced. No reduction either on R&D budgets either (https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/politiques-publiques/energie-re... ) .
No "fallout", simply a massive failure (EPR Flamanville-3).
I already asked: who did hurt the nuclear industry, when, by doing (or not doing) what, what were the effects?
> Here's a long look: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isgu-VrD0oM
Which part (a few minutes only, please) of this unsubstantiated rant seems the most convincing to you?