Top
Best
New

Posted by mrtksn 1/15/2026

Photos capture the breathtaking scale of China's wind and solar buildout(e360.yale.edu)
775 points | 572 commentspage 5
vikas-sharma 1/15/2026|
[dead]
dadjoker 1/15/2026||
[dead]
neko_ranger 1/15/2026||
[flagged]
DontchaKnowit 1/15/2026|
What makes you say that? This sounds like denialism to me
L_gates 1/15/2026||
[flagged]
natmaka 1/15/2026||
Uranium requires mining and is recyclable at most once (solar panels components are way better).

Recyclable wind turbines blades are appearing (RecyclableBlade, ZEBRA, PECAN...) and even existing ones (today, decommissioned blades are burned in cement plants, thus providing energy) may become so (check the 'CETEC initiative')

gregbot 1/16/2026||
Uranium actually does not require mining. Most uranium is extracted using underground wells where water is pumped underground and the Uranium is extracted from the water. Also extracting Uranium from sea water (which would be basically unlimited) is close to being commercially viable and has received a lot of lab-scale research.

Also, Uranium is only recyclable once with light water reactors. With breeder reactors (which have been built in the past) it can be recycled a hundred times.

natmaka 1/23/2026|||
Sea water: "it is clear that it would be very risky today, to have a long-term industrial strategy based on significant production of uranium from seawater with an affordable cost" ( https://www.epj-n.org/articles/epjn/full_html/2016/01/epjn15... )

> With breeder reactors

After decades of expensive R&D... there is no model of industrial breeder reactor ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_reacto... ). Can you name one?

Russia is by far the most advanced. However, its "BN-800" reactor, which began operating in 2014, is so uninspiring that they abstain from deploying any of them, preferring the classic "VVER" (non-breeder) models, and its planned successor, named "BN-1200M," has been postponed to 2035.

This doesn't represent an abandonment of breeder reactors, as this nation is actively exploring another avenue: the "BREST" architecture (lead coolant rather than sodium), with a small demonstration reactor (300 MW) whose construction began in 2021, essentially "back to square one."

rsynnott 1/16/2026|||
> Most uranium is extracted using underground wells where water is pumped underground and the Uranium is extracted from the water.

... I mean that's mining?

gregbot 1/17/2026||
Arguably yes! But it avoids a lot of the safety and environmental hazards of traditional methods.
luoc 1/15/2026||
Your uranium grows on trees, mh?
expedition32 1/15/2026||
If the US ever blocks Chinese ports the lights will be kept on. Although I'm sure that situation will end with a mushroom cloud.
overfeed 1/15/2026||
It would be interesting to see how Carrier Strike groups fare against hypersonic weapons, as well as witnessing what the modern fighting doctrine is when there is no absolute air superiority.
carefulfungi 1/15/2026||
Or massive industrial hacking that destroys enough transportation, farming, and supply chain integration that there is mass starvation when food delivery and production stalls - and it all comes crumbling down.
shevy-java 1/16/2026||
Looks quite ugly, actually.

However had, there is one thing working for China: decision-making steps.

I don't have any illusion about the sinomarxist party and I don't suggest that their model - which is a dictatorship, just like the USA has transitioned into now too under an orange-painted TechBro minion - replaces democractic processes. But you do have to ask yourself what the EU is doing here, other than failing in epic ways. You can not assume that current wealth will be retained in the future; and while "green energy" is great, what we in reality see right now is simply price increases. That ultimately means wealth is deducted from a majority, and only a very few profit from this. That is a design-by-failure process now.

frm88 1/16/2026|
I have installed photovoltaic panels + battery etc on my house. My energy costs have effectively decreased by ~30%.
hollowturtle 1/15/2026||
All I see is missed opportunities to build a bunch less nuclear power plants and call it a day, without messing up with the landscape. Am I the only one? I believe if we Europeans and Americans start building nuclear power plants again we could finally compete. Renewable energy is not constant and has a storage problem
anon84873628 1/15/2026||
I also lament the landscapes covered by solar panels. Even deserts are not dead barren ecosystems. Some of these installs are only slightly better than paving the whole area.

But I get it, and tradeoffs are necessary.

Another reason China may prefer this to more concentrated nuclear power is that is is much more distributed and resilient to targeted attacks.

mrguyorama 1/16/2026||
>Some of these installs are only slightly better than paving the whole area.

Utter horseshit.

Putting up what amounts to a bunch of shade on steel pillars just doesn't harm the environment. There are more than a few contexts where it improves the environment.

There's no identified or predicted harm from large scale photovoltaic installations.

matthewdgreen 1/15/2026|||
If nuclear plants were as inexpensive as renewables, that would make a ton of sense.
gregbot 1/16/2026||
France decarbonized way before the rest of Europe with nuclear and it wasn't expensive. 50 reactors for $200 billion. Gernamy has spent twice that on intermittents and still relies on coal
dalyons 1/16/2026||
Such a tired point. It’s not the 1970s anymore, and the west can build any large projects cheap. Go look at the projected costs for France’s new fleet, and that’s before the inevitable cost overruns
gregbot 1/16/2026||
Could you post a link to those projected costs?
philipkglass 1/16/2026||
"EDF estimates EPR2 programme cost at EUR72.8 billion"

France's EDF has said its preliminary cost estimate for the project to build six EPR2 reactors at Penly, Gravelines and Bugey totals EUR72.8 billion (USD85.3 billion).

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/edf-estimates-ep...

Each reactor outputs 1650 megawatts of electricity running at full power. Assuming they run at 92% capacity factor, that's $9.38 per real annualized watt.

gregbot 1/17/2026||
Great. So 538TWh per year is 61 GW so roughly 61 GW * $9.38 = $576 billion staggered over the 80 year life of nuclear plants is $7.2 billion per year of capital expenditure.

For comparison, wind is about $5/W. Assuming a 35% capacity factor and a 30 year expected lifetime for the latest turbines that comes to $10.0 billion per year of capital expenditure with no storage or fossil backup systems or extra capacity given weather variability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France

matthewdgreen 1/17/2026||
PV solar is between $.97 and $1.16 per watt, so that's going to be the front line. With storage you can get from $1.60 to $2. This is already the bulk of the power generation in Europe and is only going to increase. The idea that you're going to run nuclear plants at 95% capacity factor economically is also very suspect in a continent saturated with cheap PV solar.
gregbot 1/17/2026||
US NREL Puts it at $2/W with no storage and ~20% capacity factor. Lifetime of latest panels is unknown but optimistically is 25 years. Assuming perfect and free storage that comes to $24.4 billion per year of capital expenditure for a country the size of France to be 100% solar. So no, it would not be more economical to use solar over nuclear. Wind would be better but when you add the full system costs of storage and backup intermittent heavy systems are vastly more expensive and emit more carbon than nuclear ones. https://discussion.fool.com/t/levelized-full-system-costs-of...

Intermittents are only gaining market share because their unreliable and intermittent power which is less valuable is being purchased by governments at prices that far exceed what it is worth. In other words, massive hidden subsidies. Without those, there would be next to no intermittents on the grid anywhere.

See “Market matching costs” here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Computer0 1/15/2026|||
At least half of people I talk to are strongly opposed to nuclear energy. How many are opposed to the current sources of energy as well? I wonder.
hollowturtle 1/15/2026||
Agree they oppose nuclear, perhaps because of the fear of the unknown radiation or whatever. Reality is all nuclear incidents combined are nothing compared to the health problems oil and gas created(not to mention political implications). To me filling a giant space with solar panels or installing giant bird killing turbines is such a moronic move when you can have unnoticeable small nuclear power plants
kibwen 1/16/2026||
> bird killing turbines

If you think wind turbines are a significant cause of bird deaths it shows that you have no clue what you're talking about. Please don't bother commenting on this topic again.

hollowturtle 1/16/2026||
Not as many as cats I certainly know that, it obiovusly was an hyperbole used to underline that all we need is just a nuclear power plant to replace all that wind turbines
frm88 1/16/2026||
Our study, covering 45 species across 91 countries, reveals that human-induced factors—predominantly electrocution, illegal killing, and poisoning—constitute the major threats to bird mortality, highlighting a critical issue in global biodiversity conservation.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632072...

and from last year, US specific, endangered species:

A comparative assessment with data from the 2010 Red List reveals an increase in the proportion of threatened species recorded as being impacted by certain threats. Notably, the incidence of hunting and trapping as a documented threat has increased from 34% to 41% of threatened species. Similarly, the proportion of species assessments with fire/fire suppression, climate change, pollution, invasive alien species and energy production have each increased by 3-5 percentage points.

https://datazone.birdlife.org/articles/state-of-the-worlds-b...

Wind turbines are a significantly lower threat than windows, look it up!

hackable_sand 1/16/2026||
Compete with what? Is this more American shadowboxing?
hotz 1/15/2026||
Depressing to look at.
Steve16384 1/15/2026||
Not as depressing as if it was coal power stations and coalmines blighting the landscape.
MaxHoppersGhost 1/15/2026||
China is building more coal plants right now than the entire world combined so don’t worry they have those too.
dalyons 1/16/2026||
And yet their coal usage has plateaued for the last few years, and actually likely started to decline in 25.
btbuildem 1/15/2026|||
You mean in context of a complete regression in the West, right?
rsynnott 1/16/2026|||
I mean, somewhat less depressing to look at that hospital wards full of people with COPD, which is the realistic alternative, IMO.
goodpoint 1/15/2026||
No, they are beautiful.
richardanaya 1/16/2026||
Where's the pictures of the coal plants that keep energy going when the wind/sun go down?
Lucasoato 1/15/2026|
Why aren't we doing it in the rest of the world as well?
ben_w 1/15/2026||
The rest of the world is, in fact, doing it as well.
rsynnott 1/16/2026|||
China's willing to provide lots of capital for this, which has sped it up, but this is generally happening at a slower pace in most developed countries (and many non-developed ones, for that matter). It's even happening in the US, despite ol' minihands actively trying to stop it.
estimator7292 1/15/2026||
Basically everyone is except the USA
More comments...