Comment by kibwen

Comment by kibwen 17 hours ago

45 replies

For reference, China installs about 1 GW of solar per day. By this time next week, they will have surpassed the output of this entire project.

philipkglass 17 hours ago

China is the world's largest electricity producer and installs a lot of generating capacity of all types. For example, China has 29 nuclear reactors with 31 GW of capacity currently under construction:

https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails....

  • ViewTrick1002 17 hours ago

    Which leads to a shrinking nuclear share in their grid. It peaked at 4.6% in 2021, now down to 4.3%.

    Compared to their renewable buildout the nuclear scheme is a token gesture to keep a nuclear industry alive if it would somehow end up delivering cheap electricity. And of course to enable their military ambitions.

    • remus 17 hours ago

      I think that says more about their vast investment in other forms of power (particularly renewables) than it suggests a lack of investment in nuclear.

      • fsh 16 hours ago

        The nuclear share dropping is a very clear signal about a lack of investment. Shows that nuclear energy is no longer cost competitive, even in a "low regulation" environment.

softwaredoug 17 hours ago

The US, in 2024, installed ~0.13 GW of solar per day.

https://seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-rep...

6 GW Nuclear is either a tech company getting ahead of bad PR with a token gesture. Or its maybe? the start of something real.

  • echelon 17 hours ago

    Two years ago we were installing 1/10th of Chinese solar today?

    Where are we at today? Can we catch up under this administration?

    Where do we compare on a nuclear basis? I know my state installed nuclear reactors recently, but I'm not aware of any other build outs.

    In a war game scenario, China is probably more concerned about losing access to oil and natural gas than we are. Not that we shouldn't be building this stuff quickly either.

    • worik 17 hours ago

      > Can we catch up under this administration?

      No. The future is Chinese, if the Chinese can maintain good governance.

      A big "if"

dmurray 17 hours ago

1 GW in nameplate capacity of solar panels powers fewer data centres than 1 GW of nuclear. So it needs to be "this time next month".

Dylan16807 17 hours ago

1GW at noon, maybe 20% of that average.

China's building a bunch of nuclear too.

  • malfist 17 hours ago

    That isn't how solar capacity is measured. It's not simply its maximum instantaneous power potential

    • dredmorbius 16 hours ago

      There are multiple measures, as generating technologies are complex. "Nameplate capacity" (given above) is one, "capacity factor", which is (roughly) the time-averaged output is another, and for solar averages about 20%, though that can vary greatly by facility and location.

      Nuclear has one of the highest capacity factors (90% or greater), whilst natural gas turbines amongst the lowest (<10% per the link below). This relates not only to the reliability of the technologies, but how they are employed. Nuclear power plants cannot be easily ramped up or down in output, and are best operated at continuous ("base load") output, whilst gas-turbine "peaking stations" can be spun up on a few minutes' notice to provide as-needed power. Wind and solar are dependent on available generating capability, though this tends to be fairly predictable over large areas and longer time periods. Storage capability and/or dispatchable load make managing these sources more viable, however.

      <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nameplate_capacity>

      <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor>

    • Dylan16807 16 hours ago

      It's close enough to how it's measured. China's terawatt of solar power capacity isn't producing 9000 terawatt hours in a year. Their total electricity use is 9000 terawatt hours.

    • XorNot 16 hours ago

      It is how individual power generation projects and measured though. If you install a GW of solar generation, it means you installed solar panels capable of generating 1 GW peak. If you install a 1 GW of coal generation, then same thing. If you install 1 GW peaker gas plants etc.

      The coal plant will have a capacity factor of 80% though. Solar will be 10 to 20%. And the gas plant could be very low due to usage intent.

      Battery projects are the same (since they're reported as generators). Whatever nameplate capacity...for about 4 hours only.

  • lostlogin 15 hours ago

    As mentioned numerous times in this thread, the percentage of their generation that is nuclear is falling.

  • cenamus 17 hours ago

    So only installing 73GW average capacity per year.

    • Dylan16807 13 hours ago

      Yes. Meta's matching a whole month of China's solar growth, which I would call a lot.

      • kibwen 12 hours ago

        A whole month of China's growth... to come fully online by 2036.

        • Dylan16807 10 hours ago

          For a single company that's half a percent of US GDP.

boringg 17 hours ago

Solar and Nuclear energy are different energy products. China is also bringing on an insane amount of nuclear energy.

  • kibwen 17 hours ago

    In absolute terms, China installs about as much nuclear as the US does solar. So I can only assume you agree with the statement "the US is bringing on an insane amount of solar energy"? Because, once again in absolute terms, the US's solar buildout is trounced by China's. The US is losing the energy race, and nuclear isn't going to save it. The US will run out of fissile material before China runs out of sunlight.

    • SoftTalker 17 hours ago

      There's really no risk of running out of fissile material. We can create it.

    • boringg 17 hours ago

      Depends if they start seeding clouds and doing geo engineering.

      Nuclear and solar are different energy products that are complementary. This solar vs nuclear narrative is basic and anti progress.

      For example china invested in solar so they can transition their energy system and get it paid by selling globally via subsidized cell manufacturing.

      I don't think they will be able to sell export their nuclear tech globally since it is essentially repackaged US tech.

      But yeah Im all for solar - more solar the better but it cant do firm power well.

  • epistasis 17 hours ago

    China is building a tiny amount of nuclear in comparison to their wind, solar, storage, and HVDC builds. Only something like 50-100GW over thw coming decades. The quantity being built only makes sense as a strategic hedge, not as a primary strategy.

  • ViewTrick1002 17 hours ago

    Renewables crash the money making potential of nuclear power. Why should someone buy ~18-24 cents/kWh new built nuclear power excluding backup, transmission costs, taxes, final waste deposit etc. when cheap renewables deliver?

    https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Wha...

    China is barely building nuclear power, in terms of their grid size. It peaked at 4.6% in 2021, now down to 4.3%.

    Compared to their renewable buildout the nuclear scheme is a token gesture to keep a nuclear industry alive if it would somehow end up delivering cheap electricity.

    • boringg 17 hours ago

      Again they aren't the same product. Everyone always thinks power is only about $/kwh especially in hackernews. That is a strong proponent of the product but most definitely not all of it. Solar just does not work for large scale industrial uses cases (99.99% uptime). Even with massive energy storage to try and cover the edges. Its a great combo but not comparable.

    • Moldoteck 16 hours ago

      nuclear provides for about 4-5ct/kwh if built cheap, everything included, looking at swiss data. Chinese units are built for 2.5bn/unit, so probably even cheaper than that. But yes, china is far from what france or sweden did with nuclear per capita

      • ViewTrick1002 2 hours ago

        The problem is that western new built nuclear power costs 18-24 cents/kWh when running at 100% 24/7 without backup, transmission fees, taxes etc. based on Vogtle, HPC, FV3, Polish Ap1000s, EPR2s etc.

        We can create imaginary renewable scenarios as well.

        For example: "Assuming renewables and storage costs get an 80% price reduction (like you just gave nuclear power) then YY will happen".

blondie9x 17 hours ago

Renewables and battery storage energy are unstoppable. Why take nuclear risk when you can get more than enough from solar, wind, and geothermal coupled with battery storage?

  • Moldoteck 16 hours ago

    lol, talking about risky nuclear investment and mentioning geothermal as ready to go alternative...

    • lostlogin 15 hours ago

      It’s not easy to go. It’s going, and has been for many decades.

      Small scale where I am, when compared with hydro.

  • XorNot 16 hours ago

    Geothermal is essentially negligible to the grid so it's weird to include it.

    It's also so geographically constrained no one can choose to build it anyway.

logicchains 16 hours ago

China is a country with over a billion people, Meta is a private company with under 100k employees, it doesn't really make sense to compare the power output of their investments.