• clayj9@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      ‘Natural’ gas is just gas. It’s not a clean emission free fuel. It’s better than coal but by no means a clean fuel.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Better than coal is its main selling point.

        And converting coal power plants to natural gas can be a partial interim solution on the way towards larger amounts of non-polluting generation.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Also needs less coal.

      And after that less natural gas, but getting rid of coal should be the higher priority as it is the greater polluting fuel.

      • wikibot@lemmy.worldB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

        China is one of the world's largest producers of nuclear power. The country ranks third in the world both in total nuclear power capacity installed and electricity generated, accounting for around one tenth of global nuclear power generated. As of February 2023, China has 55 plants with 57GW in operation, 22 under construction with 24 GW and more than 70 planned with 88GW. About 5% of electricity in the country is due to nuclear energy. These plants generated 417 TWh of electricity in 2022 This is versus the September 2022 numbers of 53 nuclear reactors, with a total capacity of 55.6 gigawatt (GW). In 2019, nuclear power had contributed 4.9% of the total Chinese electricity production, with 348.1 TWh.Nuclear power has been looked into as an alternative to coal due to increasing concerns about air quality, climate change and fossil fuel shortages. The China General Nuclear Power Group has articulated the goal of 200 GW by 2035, produced by 150 additional reactors.China has two major nuclear power companies, the China National Nuclear Corporation operating mainly in north-east China, and the China General Nuclear Power Group (formerly known as China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group) operating mainly in south-east China.China aims to maximize self-reliance on nuclear reactor technology manufacturing and design, although international cooperation and technology transfer are also encouraged. Advanced pressurized water reactors such as the Hualong One are the mainstream technology in the near future, and the Hualong One is also planned to be exported. China plans to build as many as thirty nuclear power reactors in countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative by 2030. By mid-century fast neutron reactors are seen as the main technology, with a planned 1400 GW capacity by 2100. China is also involved in the development of nuclear fusion reactors through its participation in the ITER project, having constructed an experimental nuclear fusion reactor known as EAST located in Hefei, as well as research and development into the thorium fuel cycle as a potential alternative means of nuclear fission.

        article | about

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yeah, no. I used to be pro-nuclear. Then I looked at how the economics have changed over the last 10 years, and I changed my mind like you’re supposed to when presented with new information.

          • pizzazz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I like how governments are supposed to shit their money out of the window to support renewables with billions in incentives but when the matter is investment in nuclear power suddenly it’s unsustainable economics. Let’s ask Germany how their 600+ billion euro “energiewende” is going shall we?

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              Nuclear got tons of subsidies. Lots of those plants were built for the dual purpose of energy and making bombs. It’s unlikely the United States would have half the reactors it does if not for the Cold War.

              At this point, it’s a matter of what’s most efficient for energy alone, and that ain’t nuclear. Take out every subsidy in every form of energy, and the people with money to invest will put it all in wind and solar.

              • pizzazz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Right now the comparison between France (61 GWs of installed nuclear) and Germany (130+ -!!!- GWs of installed renewables) is disastrous. Their choice to phase out their remaining plants was criminal but the policy is dumb in general, tying themselves to coal and gas power for the realistic future. I’m very curious to see when (or if) they’ll ever get to the same emission levels and how much time and money they’ll have wasted by then.

                BTW. Nuclear Power Plants pay themselves up in decades of operation. Of course a privateer is not extremely keen in this kind of investment. That is exactly why countries are supposed to invest in strategic infrastructure, which are partly indirectly financed by privateers through treasury bonds.

                • frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I agree shutting down fictional nuclear plants is dumb. Doesn’t mean we should build new ones.