You: "Well you better go tell the Chinese that they should slow down on wind and solar, clearly they are misinformed about how to run their grid."
What do you call this? "An argument"? I was polite calling it a non sequitur.
> Is disingenuous and self-serving by the nuclear industry since they don’t acknowledge that their nuclear build out is a rounding error (and a decade behind behind schedule) compared to renewables.
China: Approves 10 new nuclear reactors a year. Builds up an extremely diversified power source for their country.
You: You're disingenuous. They are not building that much nuclear.
> their nuclear build out is a rounding error (and a decade behind behind schedule) compared to renewables.
Please don't use words and term whose meaning you don't understand. By source of power nuclear is 4.47% of total electricity production. Solar 8%, wind 10%, hydro 13.4%.
China is extremely lucky with their rivers and landscape. Hydro is huge in China.
> If we want to point to China and say we should do what they do
They do literally what I said: China is building out all power sources at tremendous pace. It's diversifying its energy production.
You, on the other hand:
- Claim that I should go and tell China to stop building solar and wind. Something I never said or implied
- That nuclear build up in China is a rounding error compared to renewables. It's not
- That "doing what China is doing" means to somehow only focus on renewables. Whereas China focuses on all sources, and nuclear is literally one of the country's priorities, building and approving more reactors a year than the rest of the world combined (going from 9 constructions in 2000 to 36 in 2025, 42 new ones proposed, and over 140 on the roadmap, 6-7 years construction time per reactor). And they are busy building nuclear reactors around the world (so, gaining more and more expertise and technologies).
At this point I've said all I needed to say to you.
Ah yes.
Me: China is building a lot of nuclear.
You: "Well you better go tell the Chinese that they should slow down on wind and solar, clearly they are misinformed about how to run their grid."
What do you call this? "An argument"? I was polite calling it a non sequitur.
> Is disingenuous and self-serving by the nuclear industry since they don’t acknowledge that their nuclear build out is a rounding error (and a decade behind behind schedule) compared to renewables.
China: Approves 10 new nuclear reactors a year. Builds up an extremely diversified power source for their country.
You: You're disingenuous. They are not building that much nuclear.
> their nuclear build out is a rounding error (and a decade behind behind schedule) compared to renewables.
Please don't use words and term whose meaning you don't understand. By source of power nuclear is 4.47% of total electricity production. Solar 8%, wind 10%, hydro 13.4%.
China is extremely lucky with their rivers and landscape. Hydro is huge in China.
> If we want to point to China and say we should do what they do
They do literally what I said: China is building out all power sources at tremendous pace. It's diversifying its energy production.
You, on the other hand:
- Claim that I should go and tell China to stop building solar and wind. Something I never said or implied
- That nuclear build up in China is a rounding error compared to renewables. It's not
- That "doing what China is doing" means to somehow only focus on renewables. Whereas China focuses on all sources, and nuclear is literally one of the country's priorities, building and approving more reactors a year than the rest of the world combined (going from 9 constructions in 2000 to 36 in 2025, 42 new ones proposed, and over 140 on the roadmap, 6-7 years construction time per reactor). And they are busy building nuclear reactors around the world (so, gaining more and more expertise and technologies).
At this point I've said all I needed to say to you.
Adieu.