Nuclear is getting installed for sure. Just orders of magnitude less than renewables, and it is more expebsive. And the vast majority of new NPPs replace those being shut down, meaning the new net nuclear capacity is much less than the new NPPs total capacity. This shows cleary, if you were willing to look at the numbers, in which direction the funding goes.
1. To my "I've head rumors that you can do both" you replied "I heard facts that people don't so."
Glad we are now agreed that your comment was not true, and mine was true. Doing "more" of one does not imply one is not doing the other at all.
2. It's not "orders of magnitude less" once you account for capacity factors.
And once again: the nuclear under-investment of the last few decades is well known, and so that is what we are seeing in the stats now. The policy shifts just started happening at earliest a year ago, most this year. While nuclear doesn't take nearly as long as anti-nuclear advocates claim, it also doesn't happen in a few months either.
PV load factor for utility scale solar was 16%. China installed 230 GW, Europe 75 GW and the US 40 GW -> 55 GW incl. load factor and excluding the rest of the world
Wind:
Let's use 40% as a load factor, which seems reasonable. Globally, around 100 GW added -> net 40 GW
NPP grid connections in 2022 (if you have 2023 numbers, please share them): 8.3 GW, with a load factor of aeound 80% for 2022 -> 6.6 GW. At the same 2.2 GW,
around 1.8 GW of NPPs were shut down, resulting a net gain of 4.8 GW.
In total we have 90 GW of wind solar vs. not even 7 GW of nuclear. Excluding load factors we have 440 GW of wind and solar vs. 8.3 GW of nuclear globally. In the western world, those numbers fall even more towards wind and solar.
And looking at estimates until 2035, these numbers are looking even worse for nuclear.
So no, countries are not doing both, countries, especially in Asia, are very, very slowly adding new NPPs while overall net added nuclear capacity is negligible and barely replacing shut down reactors.
In other words, one year worth of new NPPs is added every two weeks using wind and solar.
All my numbers above are including load factors... And I never said nuclear projects don't exist, only that their net added capacity is negligible compared to wind and solar. And that those historical numbers show us that the investment money is mainly going into wind and solar instead of nuclear, and did for years now.
You could accept these facts as reality, which would make this whole discussion a lot less frustrating... Or at least engage with the numbers, which you didn't neither...
> All my numbers above are including load factors...
Nope.
>>> Excluding load factors we have 440 GW of wind and solar vs. 8.3 GW
> I never said nuclear projects don't exist
Yes you did.
>>> I've heard rumors that you can do both at the same time.
>> I heard facts that people don't so.
> only that their net added capacity is negligible compared to wind and solar.
Nope, see above. But they are also not negligible.
> ...and did for years now.
And I've told you a number of times now that the historical under-investment in nuclear the last few decades or so is a well-known fact that in no way contradicts the fact that policy has now changed.
Linearly projecting a past trend into the future is ... unwise. Particularly if there has been a major policy shift. Which there has.
Arguing that the policy shift that just happened hasn't happened because it had no effect in the past is even less wise.
