| PRC nuclear isn't "slowing" it's on pace/steady relative to latest 5 year plan, but pace of renewables like solar have simply exploded relative to forecast. The TLDR is there was dicey 2010-2020 period post Fukushima reassessment and AP1000/EPR drama... where PRC realized even they can't build western nuclear tech economically due to foreign drama (technical issues, political issues i.e. sanctions, Westinghouse bankruptcy). Took them a few years to unfuck situation with indigenous nuclear tech stack, but then solar LCOE plummeted and industrial capacity made prioritizing solar no brainer. As in they're still on trend for nuclear targets, but far above trend for solar... party because after cracking down on real estate, resources went into industry, and solar factories went brrrt + a lot of excess labour redirected from building apartments to building solar farms. So not so much nuclear slowing, as it looks slowing relative to solar speeding. We'll know more if they scale down nuclear in next 5 year plan, which they may depending on status of storage. |
| |
| ▲ | ViewTrick1002 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > As in they're still on trend for nuclear targets They’re not. The targets keeps being revised down and pushed into the future for every plan they make. | | |
| ▲ | maxglute 3 days ago | parent [-] | | They only revised down 12th since it was mid Fukushima. 13th they missed targets due to AP1000/EPR and having to pivot to domestic but didn't revise down. Special circumstances. 14th latest, midterm review a couple years ago (amidst solar boom) said most indicators were meeting expectations. Last I checked they're on trend to hit 65/70GW by 2025 with ~30GW under construction, and 70GW by 2026/27, i.e. reasonably late, which given nature of nuclear I'd give a pass and categorize as on trend give nuclear leadtimes. +1-2 year of execution delays isn't unexpected, but they're not dramatically cutting targets/plans. Have to wait until next long term strategies, i.e.see if they revise down their ~100 GW by 2030, or ~200GW by 2035 plans, reality is they're basically on first wave of domestic plants with associated growing pains. If things go well, they can quickly scale. | | |
| ▲ | ViewTrick1002 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > In December 2011 China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) announced that China would make nuclear energy the foundation of its electricity generation system in the next “10 to 20 years”, adding as much as 300 gigawatts (GWe) of nuclear capacity over that period. > This was followed by a period of delay as China undertook a comprehensive review of nuclear safety in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. > Subsequently, moderated nuclear energy targets were established, aiming for a nuclear energy contribution of 15% of China’s total electricity generation by 2035, 20-25% by 2050 and 45% in the second half of the century. > However by 2023 it was becoming clear that China’s nuclear construction program was well behind schedule. The target for 2020 had not been achieved, and targets for subsequent 5-year plans were unlikely to be achieved. > In September 2023 the China Nuclear Energy Association (CNEA) reported that China was now aiming to achieve a nuclear energy contribution of 10% by 2035, increasing to around 18% by 2060. https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-t... China has also revamped the funding model for nuclear power with it now having to compete on costs with alternative generation. They have an enormous backlog of reactors which has achieved regulatory approval but have yet to start construction. In 2025 only 4 reactors have so far started construction, in 2024 the total number was 6 reactors. At current expansion rates nuclear power's slice of the Chinese grid is shrinking. Let alone multiplying. | | |
| ▲ | maxglute 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Quotes from article repeating my points but missing context. 2011 was 12th 5-year plan, post Fukushima + desire to indigenize nuclear stack, they revised down nuclear ambitions / timelines, but it's not indicator they're cancelling / downgrading nuclear rollout. As in 13th, 14th plan hasn't deviated from nuclear targets revised 15 years ago, i.e. generation goal has been consistent given reasonable adjustments 100GW by 2030, 200GW by 2035 vs 300 GW in timeline without Fukushima + indigenization. Nuclear contribution downgrade as % of energy mix wasn't because they plan to curtail / cut back nuclear GWs, it's because their projection for future energy demand has grown above prediction, so planned nuclear share is going to be smaller %, i.e. nuclear share falls even if GW targets consistent. It just so happens they lucked out that solar/wind matured rapidly to fill gap. Current construction / execution issues involves in dealing with 1st wave of indigenous plants, again it's shrinking as % of grid/mix because denominator is higher than expected, which is independent of central gov desire to multiply nuclear build rate, which they can't reliably commit to until tech is mature. So the best we can say is they're a few years off their planned nuclear GWs and if tech matures, they can go forth and multiply. Of course if alternative LCOE makes nuclear not economical that could change, i.e. if storage blows up. But there's no actual policy hints that nuclear is being revised down, as in not in the last 15 years, which even then is mostly target being pushed a decade due to factors listed. Now they're on trend and the delays are single digit year execution related, not 10+ year we have to rebuild the tech stack delays. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | nomel 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No. It’s not “decreasing”, it’s decreasing. We’re in the realm of math here, not your opinion or imagination. The second derivative is negative for all data shown (except 2018). That means, factually, objectively, in reality, as measured, the rate of growth decreased. If you need help understanding this, I can provide a spreadsheet with the calculation and plots. | | |
| ▲ | maxglute 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No offense, "Realm of math" is useless autistic framing. We're in the realm of politics and policy. Numbers rising or falling are execution noise, downstream of intent and implementation. PRC's 13th/14th Five-Year Plans all kept medium term target (~200GW by 2035). Shortfalls (i.e. numbers decreasing) come from first-gen domestic reactor growing pains not strategic abandonment. Pointing at a latest points graph line and yelling "decreasing" without context is spreadsheet nitpicks vs what policy signals suggest future trend will be. The reality is PRC rollout is slightly behind schedule, single digit years. LCOE of solar and other renewables are increasing projected energy generation targets, so nuclear is less as % of energy mix even though policy for nuclear has been steady, i.e. behind schedule =/= decreasing nuclear commitment. | | |
|
|
