'we wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.'”
Good.
A more expensive way to get from A to B that uses dramatically more energy, is inherently more dangerous and doesn't really save any time? No, we don't really need that.
A system that allows me to receive information from anywhere on the planet, selectively, sorted and filtered? That sounds like something we actually need.
> The thing is, the realities of Chernobyl and Fukushima are the realities of ancient, outdated equipment, bad design and unsound engineering
And here's the other example of hand waving that goes on *every time*. What, there was a nuclear disaster that's going to cost hundreds of billions to clean up? Don't look at that, because *insert lame excuse*.
No one is ever going to trust anyone that doesn't own their mistakes.
> that a bunch of know-nothing, luddite politicians and cronies
And there you have it. Another fine example why nuclear "supporters" are the industry's second biggest problem.
Or anything, ever. It was native rights that killed the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, for instance, not the legions of greenies.
The nuclear industry loves to point fingers at practically everyone as the cause of their problems, and the softer the target the better. So they point at the eco hippies and chant "its their fault". When that doesn't work, they point at the regulators, then the local governments, the local residents and finally the bankers. That last one is called biting the hand that feeds you.
But the root cause of the problem is and always has been the soaring CAPEX. In spite of herculean efforts, $/W continues to go up, up and away.
And if you care to turn to page 5, you'll find that the reason for this has little to do with nuclear anything, and that the cost drivers are out of the industry's control. Copper prices aren't going down if we do or do not build a reactor somewhere. On page 6 we learn that most of the suppliers have left the field, and if a new reactor was to be built in the US, it would rely almost entirely on foreign companies.
It's dead. That noise you hear is the dead cat bounce.
> That's great that you believe your own bullshit. Solar is not cheaper than nuclear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
See, here's the problem... your quoting an article I made major contribs on, and I can state without doubt that the numbers you're quoting are out of date.
Go to page 2. Utility scale PV *is* cheaper than nuclear.
Really, did you expect otherwise? Nukes have been going up in cost continually for the last 35 years, in spite of herculean efforts on the parts of the designers. Modern plants average $7.5/W, there were closer to $2 in the 1960s (yes, inflation adjusted). PV has done the opposite, it was around $150 in the 1970s, and is about $1.75 now.
But you can find, literally, dozens of papers from governments, installers, grid operators and others that all come in around the same number.
> The wind here btw is available 90% of the time
Not it's not.
> they STILL LOSE MONEY
No they don't.
> But if you knew anything about it, you'd also know that.
I know quite a bit about the industry, both as a technical analyst and hands-on PV guy. I say you're full of crap, and I'd like you to provide any sort of recent numbers that back up any of this BS.
> It doesn't need to be sunny for solar panels to operate well.
Oh yes it does. Efficiency drops off non-linearly with intensity. Blue sky is about 10 to 15% of the illumination of full-on sun, but you make maybe 5% of the power.
PEM fuel cells running when the sun isn't appears to be a simple solution to distributed energy. I have mini-power failures every week and major ones every five years or so, but I have never lost gas pressure in 20 years. Their efficiency is on the same order as turbines from about one generation ago (about 40%). That means the marginal LCoE will be largely dominated by the price of the unit. Pay it or don't, up to you.
> all-in-one nuclear reactors
Never going to happen. Nuclear reactor economics scale VERY strongly with size, which is why they're all 600 MWe and larger. Yes, I've seen the various ideas and plans for smaller units, but I haven't actually *seen* one, and neither has anyone else, and every time I try to delve into the economics I find they basically just add a bunch of handwavium about future power prices, and that's where I stop reading. If wishes were fishes...
> Wires from a home built in the 1970's are often so brittle that they crumble
My home was built in 1917 or earlier. The wiring is knob-n-tube. The insulation is quite brittle and will break. It won't if you don't move it. The wire is fine in either case.
Transformer efficiency has increased dramatically since the 1970s.
Moreover, we need to replace a lot of them to get true bidirectional flows, and it would be really nice to have cap banks at all the distribution centres to fix the problems with reclosers. My power goes out for about 1/2 of a second about once a week, and that's really not something that should be happening.
> The power grid is only fragile at times because we do not keep enough excess capacity
No, the power "grid" is fragile because it's not a grid. If you trace the wire from your home backwards I think you'll find there is exactly one route for that power to reach the regional distribution center, probably one route from there to the 230kVA backbone, and maybe even one route from there to the actual network. Consider the mess that occurred in Montreal, in spite of one of the best developed actual *grids* in existence.
What a BS complaint. "I posted something untrue on a self-publishing site". Gee, color me oh-so-impressed.
All the more amusing is the comments system, which only offers logins though FB or TW, and as a part of this, gains your friends list and the ability to post on your behalf. That's so the software in question can post lies (adverts) with your name on them.
Maybe the Wiki caused the term "truthiness" to be created, but it certainly didn't create the concept. People have always, and always will, greatly prefer to believe whatever they believe other people like them believe rather than anything resembling the truth. The fact that the comments system is based on taking advantage of this invalidates the entire argument of the article.
> You mix subsidized prices, market rates and costs in your analysis to the point where it doesn't make sense
Ummm, you are aware, of course, that the former is largely a function of the later? As to the market rates, all $/kWh figures I gave were *unsubsidized LCoE*. I don't know how you concluded otherwise, there was certainly nothing in the post that suggested that. Actually my numbers are out of date too, the latest figures are even more in the same direction:
Go to page 2, the one titled "Unsubsidized Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison".
> The key thing is that 1Kw of nuclear capacity generates on average about 5 times the electricity in a year than 1Kw of solar PV
And the other key thing is that PV CAPEX costs more than 5 times less than nuclear. And in both cases, LCoE is pretty much directly a function of CAPEX because fuel costs are either low (nuclear) or zero (PV).
Levy County was tagged at $11/Wp. PV in the US, according to page 8 of that report, is about $1.75. 5 times $1.75 is $8.75.
$8.75 And, the cost of backup
Every study that has ever been prepared on the topic has conclusively demonstrated this is a non-argument until these sources account for a LOT of the energy mix. They don't, currently, and won't hit the levels needed for a long time. Certainly the recent production figures in Germany, which went off without a hitch, demonstrate this fairly conclusively. All the numbers I've seen suggest we don't have to do anything other than upgrade software (which IBM sells, among others) until we're well into the 30 to 35% range, and right now we're around 15%, including hydro which offsets the other numbers.
"With something like an LFTR reactor, your nuclear proliferation risk may not be zero, but it's a sum only slightly above zero. Unlike current, decades-old dry fuel reactors."
Oh geez, this again. As has been pointed out by many, the chemical re-processing used in the lifter is inherently a great way to take reactor grade fuel and upgrade it to weapon grade, all while producing power.
Will it be it more difficult than doing the same from a conventional U reactor? Yes. Will it make it MUCH more difficult? Not really. In fact, it might not be difficult at all:
> All energy sources are subsidized to some extent
Indeed.
> If all subsidies were removed, gas would completely dominate, followed by coal and nuclear
Maybe in the 1970s, but this is certainly not true today. Wind is very competitive with NG, nuclear isn't remotely close.
NG is only competitive because of a grab-bag of direct and indirect incentives on the exploration and development side. These include numerous reductions in oversight to lower the time delay in getting drills into the ground. I'm all in favour of this, but the point remains that if these changes had not been made, NG would still be more expensive than coal.
As to nuclear, it's not even close. The cost of nuclear power was only ever competitive due to *MASSIVE* development funds and spin-offs from the nuclear bomb industry. As the thorium crowd is fond of pointing out, the only reason we use uranium is that its what the bombs were using (as a feedstock, if nothing else). That Chernobyl was an adapted bomb-supply device illustrates this point.
But more to the point, the cost of nuclear has been rising almost continually since the 1960s. It's currently about twice what it used to be. Most of this is due to increased safety requirements, things like remote operating rooms, redundant control wiring, fireproofing, etc. The industry has been trying to fight back by introducing newer designs like the AP1000, but these have seen limited results to date.
To put numbers to the problem, nuclear power currently provides about 53% of Ontario's power, but the reactors are aging out. Plans to add a replacement came in so expensive that they simply gave up (CAPEX was *at least* 8.25 $/Wp). Instead, they are now planning a massive refurb of the Darlington plants. They haven't even started, and they're already $300 million over budget. Ignoring that, the original estimates put the refurb at about 8.3 cents/kWh. That's for a plant where the CAPEX is already paid down!
A MIT report from 2009 calculated the rise in construction costs at *15% per year* during the 2000s, a general figure from industry as a whole. As a result, the power industry has turned to smaller systems that are less capital intensive. The "credit crunch" didn't help either. The same report still said nuclear would be cheaper, but only because they applied a CO2 disposal cost that made it so. Even then, they assumed a 2007 CAPEX at $4, the overnight rate, while the industry is seeing real rates at $8 and over (that florida plant was $11/Wp). At these rates, nuclear is on the order of 6 to 8 cents/kWh *just for the mortgage payments*.
For comparison, conventional hydro is 1 to 3 cents, NG plants about 5 to 6, modern coal plants about the same, and wind about the same too. These numbers are typical, which is why you're seeing nuclear plants being abandoned all across north america, they simply do not compete with modern systems.
As to wind and PV, again, you're just wrong. Wind systems are currently going in for about $1/Wp, which is about the same as an NG turbine. For comparison, even coal plants cost more, about $2/Wp. As a result, wind power is between 5.5 and 6.5 cents/kWh in the US, making it the second fastest growing power source. As to PV, CAPEX is currently 1.80 $/Wp in the US for industrial systems, which makes the power about 10 cents. That's more expensive than base load from the other sources mentioned here, but fairly competitive with peaker systems. More importantly, PV efficiently scales from about 200W to 2GW, something no other power source we have is able to do (hyrdo comes close, but small hydro is even less reliable than PV).
And these last two are in spite of receiving pennies on the dollar in terms of support that the other sources get. Yes, there are incentives, but in the grand scheme of things, they're *tiny*. Yet they are already outcompeting most other power sources, which is why they are the fastest growing power sources world wide.
Nuclear is dead. You can tilt at that windmill all your want, but
> China is aiming to build enough nuclear capacity to beat the USA
Not any more, all plans have been dramatically scaled back. By the time the next round starts there is the significant possibility that their wind and PV installs will render it moot. Those are currently going in faster than even the peak of the predicted nuclear commissioning, which would have been around 2025.
Fukushima had something to do with this, but the Sichuan Earthquake was the real problem. You don't want construction companies who can't be bothered to bend over the tops of rebars building your reactors, and you don't want corrupt local politicians in charge of inspecting their work. If there is one major advantage that the Chinese have, it's a level of introspection unseen in the fUSSR.
Slashdot Mirror
'we wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.'”
Good.
A more expensive way to get from A to B that uses dramatically more energy, is inherently more dangerous and doesn't really save any time? No, we don't really need that.
A system that allows me to receive information from anywhere on the planet, selectively, sorted and filtered? That sounds like something we actually need.
> All molten salt reactors operate at near atmospheric pressure.
All zero of them.
> All water cooled reactors operate at least at 70 atmospheres
So the "solution" is to replace this with a caustic radioactive chemical system. Because nothing could possibly go wrong with that.
> Only the ignorant label it a nuclear disaster
The industry labels it as a disaster, especially to their bottom line.
But keep up the handwavium and insults, that's well known to convince people you're right.
> The thing is, the realities of Chernobyl and Fukushima are the realities of ancient, outdated equipment, bad design and unsound engineering
And here's the other example of hand waving that goes on *every time*. What, there was a nuclear disaster that's going to cost hundreds of billions to clean up? Don't look at that, because *insert lame excuse*.
No one is ever going to trust anyone that doesn't own their mistakes.
> that a bunch of know-nothing, luddite politicians and cronies
And there you have it. Another fine example why nuclear "supporters" are the industry's second biggest problem.
> No - most look like you. Because of people like you.
Bam!
> Greenies don't actually trump everything, everywhere.
Or anything, ever. It was native rights that killed the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, for instance, not the legions of greenies.
The nuclear industry loves to point fingers at practically everyone as the cause of their problems, and the softer the target the better. So they point at the eco hippies and chant "its their fault". When that doesn't work, they point at the regulators, then the local governments, the local residents and finally the bankers. That last one is called biting the hand that feeds you.
But the root cause of the problem is and always has been the soaring CAPEX. In spite of herculean efforts, $/W continues to go up, up and away.
http://www.synapse-energy.com/Downloads/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022.pdf
And if you care to turn to page 5, you'll find that the reason for this has little to do with nuclear anything, and that the cost drivers are out of the industry's control. Copper prices aren't going down if we do or do not build a reactor somewhere. On page 6 we learn that most of the suppliers have left the field, and if a new reactor was to be built in the US, it would rely almost entirely on foreign companies.
It's dead. That noise you hear is the dead cat bounce.
> That's great that you believe your own bullshit. Solar is not cheaper than nuclear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
See, here's the problem... your quoting an article I made major contribs on, and I can state without doubt that the numbers you're quoting are out of date.
Here's some new ones:
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf
Go to page 2. Utility scale PV *is* cheaper than nuclear.
Really, did you expect otherwise? Nukes have been going up in cost continually for the last 35 years, in spite of herculean efforts on the parts of the designers. Modern plants average $7.5/W, there were closer to $2 in the 1960s (yes, inflation adjusted). PV has done the opposite, it was around $150 in the 1970s, and is about $1.75 now.
> I RAN a fucking control center controlling over 700 windmills
Really? So when I call up TransAlta and ask for a recently retired guy wind ops, they'll remember you, right?
Not a problem, I still know lots of people in TA's ops.
> Educate yourself asshole
Someone needs to put that to a beat, quick!
> Perhaps you should do the math. 5 million dollar windmill @ $10 / mega watt.
Wind systems are going in between $1.5 and $2. I have no idea where your numbers come from, they're wrong. Mine come from page 8 of this:
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf
But you can find, literally, dozens of papers from governments, installers, grid operators and others that all come in around the same number.
> The wind here btw is available 90% of the time
Not it's not.
> they STILL LOSE MONEY
No they don't.
> But if you knew anything about it, you'd also know that.
I know quite a bit about the industry, both as a technical analyst and hands-on PV guy. I say you're full of crap, and I'd like you to provide any sort of recent numbers that back up any of this BS.
> Wind is not a viable option.
Yes it is, as recent reports clearly demonstrate.
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf
> It's not green by any stretch of the imagination
Sure it is.
http://tc4.iec.ch/FactSheetPayback.pdf
> When it's very hot, no wind, when it's very cold, no wind
Which is 5% of the year, so for the other 95% you have no argument?
As someone also posting from Canada, I'll simply point out that CF for ontario turbines hovers around 30%, which is *excellent*.
> It doesn't make any money, it destroys the health of the operators and technicians
That's a juicy claim. Anything to back either claim up? No?
> Most rural municipalities also have bylaws that prevent the deployment of turbines
Which is why most provincial governments have laws to override them.
> There was one setup here
One?!
Great arguments Mr. Operator. Welcome to /., now maybe you can try supporting your arguments.
So out of curiosity, you left the industry why? My imagination grows febrile.
> It doesn't need to be sunny for solar panels to operate well.
Oh yes it does. Efficiency drops off non-linearly with intensity. Blue sky is about 10 to 15% of the illumination of full-on sun, but you make maybe 5% of the power.
> basements that run off natural gas
PEM fuel cells running when the sun isn't appears to be a simple solution to distributed energy. I have mini-power failures every week and major ones every five years or so, but I have never lost gas pressure in 20 years. Their efficiency is on the same order as turbines from about one generation ago (about 40%). That means the marginal LCoE will be largely dominated by the price of the unit. Pay it or don't, up to you.
> all-in-one nuclear reactors
Never going to happen. Nuclear reactor economics scale VERY strongly with size, which is why they're all 600 MWe and larger. Yes, I've seen the various ideas and plans for smaller units, but I haven't actually *seen* one, and neither has anyone else, and every time I try to delve into the economics I find they basically just add a bunch of handwavium about future power prices, and that's where I stop reading. If wishes were fishes...
> Wires from a home built in the 1970's are often so brittle that they crumble
My home was built in 1917 or earlier. The wiring is knob-n-tube. The insulation is quite brittle and will break. It won't if you don't move it. The wire is fine in either case.
You're wrong.
Carbon-fibre HT wiring appears to be going widespread over the next 20 years. That's a 3x increase in energy density.
> more reliable or more efficient out there.
Transformer efficiency has increased dramatically since the 1970s.
Moreover, we need to replace a lot of them to get true bidirectional flows, and it would be really nice to have cap banks at all the distribution centres to fix the problems with reclosers. My power goes out for about 1/2 of a second about once a week, and that's really not something that should be happening.
> The power grid is only fragile at times because we do not keep enough excess capacity
No, the power "grid" is fragile because it's not a grid. If you trace the wire from your home backwards I think you'll find there is exactly one route for that power to reach the regional distribution center, probably one route from there to the 230kVA backbone, and maybe even one route from there to the actual network. Consider the mess that occurred in Montreal, in spite of one of the best developed actual *grids* in existence.
> As far as I'm concerned, MacDonalds is the one who doesn't know how to spell MacDonalds.
Tell that to the Clan Macdonald, who were sued in spite of using the proper spelling (yes, lower-case D)
What a BS complaint. "I posted something untrue on a self-publishing site". Gee, color me oh-so-impressed.
All the more amusing is the comments system, which only offers logins though FB or TW, and as a part of this, gains your friends list and the ability to post on your behalf. That's so the software in question can post lies (adverts) with your name on them.
Maybe the Wiki caused the term "truthiness" to be created, but it certainly didn't create the concept. People have always, and always will, greatly prefer to believe whatever they believe other people like them believe rather than anything resembling the truth. The fact that the comments system is based on taking advantage of this invalidates the entire argument of the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_RC-1
> What happens to our carbon footprint with all those electric cars powered from coal and natural gas?
It goes down by about half. Even if the mix gets more CO2 intensive.
http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-wheels-electric-car-efficiency/
Don't wonder, educate yourself.
> You mix subsidized prices, market rates and costs in your analysis to the point where it doesn't make sense
Ummm, you are aware, of course, that the former is largely a function of the later? As to the market rates, all $/kWh figures I gave were *unsubsidized LCoE*. I don't know how you concluded otherwise, there was certainly nothing in the post that suggested that. Actually my numbers are out of date too, the latest figures are even more in the same direction:
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf
Go to page 2, the one titled "Unsubsidized Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison".
> The key thing is that 1Kw of nuclear capacity generates on average about 5 times the electricity in a year than 1Kw of solar PV
And the other key thing is that PV CAPEX costs more than 5 times less than nuclear. And in both cases, LCoE is pretty much directly a function of CAPEX because fuel costs are either low (nuclear) or zero (PV).
Levy County was tagged at $11/Wp. PV in the US, according to page 8 of that report, is about $1.75. 5 times $1.75 is $8.75.
$8.75 And, the cost of backup
Every study that has ever been prepared on the topic has conclusively demonstrated this is a non-argument until these sources account for a LOT of the energy mix. They don't, currently, and won't hit the levels needed for a long time. Certainly the recent production figures in Germany, which went off without a hitch, demonstrate this fairly conclusively. All the numbers I've seen suggest we don't have to do anything other than upgrade software (which IBM sells, among others) until we're well into the 30 to 35% range, and right now we're around 15%, including hydro which offsets the other numbers.
> An individual contract in the context of a 50% subsidized source with added production
> credits means nothing in terms of actual cost.
Indeed, that's the entire point of the thread.
"With something like an LFTR reactor, your nuclear proliferation risk may not be zero, but it's a sum only slightly above zero. Unlike current, decades-old dry fuel reactors."
Oh geez, this again. As has been pointed out by many, the chemical re-processing used in the lifter is inherently a great way to take reactor grade fuel and upgrade it to weapon grade, all while producing power.
Will it be it more difficult than doing the same from a conventional U reactor? Yes. Will it make it MUCH more difficult? Not really. In fact, it might not be difficult at all:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v492/n7427/full/492031a.html
> Solar doesn't come close when it comes to total cost of producing MWh on an annual basis
True, but certainly not as true as it was even a year ago:
http://www.epelectric.com/files/html/Macho_Springs/Macho_Springs_Notice_of_Proceeding_and_Hearing_12-00386-UT__2_.pdf
20 yr PPA at 5.79 cents/kWh (see para 2). Very competitive with wind and NG.
> All energy sources are subsidized to some extent
Indeed.
> If all subsidies were removed, gas would completely dominate, followed by coal and nuclear
Maybe in the 1970s, but this is certainly not true today. Wind is very competitive with NG, nuclear isn't remotely close.
NG is only competitive because of a grab-bag of direct and indirect incentives on the exploration and development side. These include numerous reductions in oversight to lower the time delay in getting drills into the ground. I'm all in favour of this, but the point remains that if these changes had not been made, NG would still be more expensive than coal.
As to nuclear, it's not even close. The cost of nuclear power was only ever competitive due to *MASSIVE* development funds and spin-offs from the nuclear bomb industry. As the thorium crowd is fond of pointing out, the only reason we use uranium is that its what the bombs were using (as a feedstock, if nothing else). That Chernobyl was an adapted bomb-supply device illustrates this point.
But more to the point, the cost of nuclear has been rising almost continually since the 1960s. It's currently about twice what it used to be. Most of this is due to increased safety requirements, things like remote operating rooms, redundant control wiring, fireproofing, etc. The industry has been trying to fight back by introducing newer designs like the AP1000, but these have seen limited results to date.
To put numbers to the problem, nuclear power currently provides about 53% of Ontario's power, but the reactors are aging out. Plans to add a replacement came in so expensive that they simply gave up (CAPEX was *at least* 8.25 $/Wp). Instead, they are now planning a massive refurb of the Darlington plants. They haven't even started, and they're already $300 million over budget. Ignoring that, the original estimates put the refurb at about 8.3 cents/kWh. That's for a plant where the CAPEX is already paid down!
A MIT report from 2009 calculated the rise in construction costs at *15% per year* during the 2000s, a general figure from industry as a whole. As a result, the power industry has turned to smaller systems that are less capital intensive. The "credit crunch" didn't help either. The same report still said nuclear would be cheaper, but only because they applied a CO2 disposal cost that made it so. Even then, they assumed a 2007 CAPEX at $4, the overnight rate, while the industry is seeing real rates at $8 and over (that florida plant was $11/Wp). At these rates, nuclear is on the order of 6 to 8 cents/kWh *just for the mortgage payments*.
For comparison, conventional hydro is 1 to 3 cents, NG plants about 5 to 6, modern coal plants about the same, and wind about the same too. These numbers are typical, which is why you're seeing nuclear plants being abandoned all across north america, they simply do not compete with modern systems.
As to wind and PV, again, you're just wrong. Wind systems are currently going in for about $1/Wp, which is about the same as an NG turbine. For comparison, even coal plants cost more, about $2/Wp. As a result, wind power is between 5.5 and 6.5 cents/kWh in the US, making it the second fastest growing power source. As to PV, CAPEX is currently 1.80 $/Wp in the US for industrial systems, which makes the power about 10 cents. That's more expensive than base load from the other sources mentioned here, but fairly competitive with peaker systems. More importantly, PV efficiently scales from about 200W to 2GW, something no other power source we have is able to do (hyrdo comes close, but small hydro is even less reliable than PV).
And these last two are in spite of receiving pennies on the dollar in terms of support that the other sources get. Yes, there are incentives, but in the grand scheme of things, they're *tiny*. Yet they are already outcompeting most other power sources, which is why they are the fastest growing power sources world wide.
Nuclear is dead. You can tilt at that windmill all your want, but
> China is aiming to build enough nuclear capacity to beat the USA
Not any more, all plans have been dramatically scaled back. By the time the next round starts there is the significant possibility that their wind and PV installs will render it moot. Those are currently going in faster than even the peak of the predicted nuclear commissioning, which would have been around 2025.
Fukushima had something to do with this, but the Sichuan Earthquake was the real problem. You don't want construction companies who can't be bothered to bend over the tops of rebars building your reactors, and you don't want corrupt local politicians in charge of inspecting their work. If there is one major advantage that the Chinese have, it's a level of introspection unseen in the fUSSR.
Thank you. You are cleared through Voice Print Identification.