I've seen quite a few SMR proposals over the last couple of years and not a single one that dared to address the whole cycle from deployment to eventual decommission as a function of the total revenues - costs to operate. Most of these projects seem to be made to bilk investors or governments rather than to actually produce power. The day Italy produces the first KWh that is net profitable to the operators without counting subsidies I will be highly amazed, and that's assuming they get to operational in the first place.
I agree, I tell everyone who will listen that no country, not Russia, China, Japan, France, USA etc has ever made nuclear power profitable. And you can't blame it on the environmentalists in China and Russia.
That being said, many countries consider it a national security issue not to be held hostage to foreign oil.
China, Russia and the USA all have massive and vested interests in fossil fuels. In the US for example we’ve been subsidizing the everloving hell out of fossil, eroding regulations that would hold them accountable for externalities…
…and then people wonder why nuclear isn’t competitive. When you hold one thing under a microscope because “radiation” scares people, we end up with millions dead per year from air and water pollution due to fossil fuels.
China has some coal reserves but overall they're a major net fossil fuel importer. They're quite short of crude oil and natural gas reserves relative to demand. This is a serious national security risk which is why they've been rapidly electrifying their economy and building solar, nuclear, and hydro power plants (along with coal fired power plants).
That link is out of date. China's coal share fell under 50% this year (your link says 58%), and their CO2 emissions dropped 1% the first half of 2026.
So yes, it can be reasonably claimed that China is greening. "greening", not "green" -- 49.7% coal is still a lot of CO2.
That's 50% of electricity, but not 50% of energy. Coal still provides ~80% of energy IIRC (roughly 10% is carbon-free and growing faster than the US). China burns so, so much coal, while much of the world has shifted to natural gas, which has much less carbon per energy.
You don't recall correctly. Coal is also 50% of energy. It's used a lot for heating, but that is dropping rapidly. It's used in manufacturing, but that is also doing rapidly, except for steel. It's not used for transportation.
jacquesm · · focus · HN ↗
asmodeuslucifer · · focus · HN ↗
That being said, many countries consider it a national security issue not to be held hostage to foreign oil.
EA-3167 · · focus · HN ↗
…and then people wonder why nuclear isn’t competitive. When you hold one thing under a microscope because “radiation” scares people, we end up with millions dead per year from air and water pollution due to fossil fuels.
nradov · · focus · HN ↗
EA-3167 · · focus · HN ↗
The talking point that they’re going green doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
<a href="https://www.globalelectricity.org/china-electricity-production/" rel="nofollow">https://www.globalelectricity.org/china-electricity-producti...
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China
bryanlarsen · · focus · HN ↗
So yes, it can be reasonably claimed that China is greening. "greening", not "green" -- 49.7% coal is still a lot of CO2.
<a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/energy/articles/china-pushes-coal-miners-lift-071500851.html" rel="nofollow">https://finance.yahoo.com/energy/articles/china-pushes-coal-...
coryrc · · focus · HN ↗
bryanlarsen · · focus · HN ↗
EA-3167 · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://clintel.org/chinas-massive-coal-to-liquids-expansion/" rel="nofollow">https://clintel.org/chinas-massive-coal-to-liquids-expansion...
coryrc · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china