"Plants have been completed in 6-8 years in developing countries such as China, India and Russia but this has nothing to do with what can be accomplished in the West."
It would seem that there could be some meaningful research done on this. Someone (Conca? grad student?) should look at each of the six major energy sources from the perspective of conception to first commercial power. This study should consider timelines in both emerging and developed nations. I would hazard to guess that many who read this blog would complain about regulatory requirements. They are onerous, for sure, but I'm not sure they have as much impact on development as supply chain and construction. It would also be revealing to compare timelines for the three principal reactor types: advanced, SMR, and micro. There is no experience with the latter two, but a competent researcher should be able to distinguish characteristics that will expedite construction or stand the potential to stall it.
Why is this meaningful? So long as we are wedded to the silly notion of net-zero, we are faced with the dilemma of having to build zero-carbon sources in great numbers every day to meet the schedule demand (see Roger's substack post of 28 June 2023). The sooner the climatists understand that the energy transition will not happen overnight, the sooner we can implement policies that have a far greater likelihood of succeeding to further the transition in an orderly manner.
The growth in coal usage in China clearly demonstrates how futile minor US and EU reductioms in CO2 emissions will be to global emissions. Good thing our atmosphere is largely saturated with CO2 from a heat trapping perspective. Moreover, also a good thing CO2 is really helping plant growth so it’s possible to feed the world’s population more efficiently with less land.
CO2 truly is a life sustaining and enhancing molecule.
Jigar Shaw who runs the Department of Energy loan office mentioned on a great Volts podcast episode with nuclear skeptic David Roberts that the spreadsheet energy model requires 3x transmission and 1.7x is currently optimistic
Clean firm power is needed and nuclear is the proven option. I can't imagine a transmission turnaround that isn't extremely politically disruptive
Roger, if you are in London April 13 I cadged a ticket for the arsenal fixture with Aston Villa.
I’ll probably have to skip a mortgage payment as a result but there you go
😀
Just saw this!
I made a match last year but am not going to this year, enjoy👍
It gets worse as they moved it to Sunday a few days later and I incurred a nasty change for the flight changes
Arsenal better win
Is the China graph energy produced or nameplate capacity?
"Plants have been completed in 6-8 years in developing countries such as China, India and Russia but this has nothing to do with what can be accomplished in the West."
It would seem that there could be some meaningful research done on this. Someone (Conca? grad student?) should look at each of the six major energy sources from the perspective of conception to first commercial power. This study should consider timelines in both emerging and developed nations. I would hazard to guess that many who read this blog would complain about regulatory requirements. They are onerous, for sure, but I'm not sure they have as much impact on development as supply chain and construction. It would also be revealing to compare timelines for the three principal reactor types: advanced, SMR, and micro. There is no experience with the latter two, but a competent researcher should be able to distinguish characteristics that will expedite construction or stand the potential to stall it.
Why is this meaningful? So long as we are wedded to the silly notion of net-zero, we are faced with the dilemma of having to build zero-carbon sources in great numbers every day to meet the schedule demand (see Roger's substack post of 28 June 2023). The sooner the climatists understand that the energy transition will not happen overnight, the sooner we can implement policies that have a far greater likelihood of succeeding to further the transition in an orderly manner.
The growth in coal usage in China clearly demonstrates how futile minor US and EU reductioms in CO2 emissions will be to global emissions. Good thing our atmosphere is largely saturated with CO2 from a heat trapping perspective. Moreover, also a good thing CO2 is really helping plant growth so it’s possible to feed the world’s population more efficiently with less land.
CO2 truly is a life sustaining and enhancing molecule.
Jigar Shaw who runs the Department of Energy loan office mentioned on a great Volts podcast episode with nuclear skeptic David Roberts that the spreadsheet energy model requires 3x transmission and 1.7x is currently optimistic
Clean firm power is needed and nuclear is the proven option. I can't imagine a transmission turnaround that isn't extremely politically disruptive