The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

[DJC]

the same applies to renewables about the grid and storage of energy. 

Its still moving forward.

  Im not arguing right vs wrong here, I'm saying the bean counters don't always measure things with saving the most amount beans, rather they count beans with politics involved, and will waste more beans for many reasons not to do with being efficient with the beans.

We all know that a nuclear power plant is unwanted on anyone's doorstep and thats the main blocker behind any of them being built and consequently a political loser which is the main blocker behind them being built.

Leaving Australia aside with its ban on nuclear power, it's economics that is stopping investment in nuclear power.  The 2019 World Nuclear Industry Status report gives the following energy production costs:
>Solar power ranges from $36 in to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh);
>Onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh; and
>Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189.

On top of that, since 2009 the average construction time for reactors worldwide was just under 10 years, and that's well above the  World Nuclear Association's estimate of between 5 and 8.5 years.  That's a major drawback when stabilising the climate is urgent.

Apart from the slowness of nuclear power station builds, it no longer meets technical or operational needs that low-carbon options  meet much faster and with lower initial and ongoing costs.  Capital investment reflects that.  For example, in 2018, China invested $91 billion in renewables but just $6.5 billion in nuclear ... and there's no consideration of whether the population wants or doesn't want a nuclear power plant on their doorstep.

It’s worth adding that China has just decided to increase its coal-fired electricity generation capacity.  The CCP doesn’t give a fat rat’s clacker about climate change, international obligations and/or the wishes of the people.  It goes with the cheapest options and they are renewables and coal, not nuclear.