seriously, look at renewable growth around the world. compare it to nuclear growth. it’s not a match.

another country i didn’t mention above is Brazil (5th largest in the world). 80% of contracts in a recent power auction were for wind power projects: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/22/80-of-contracts-in-latest-brazil-power-auction-are-wind-power/
is it going nuclear? nope. why not? wind is the cheapest option around. solar beats retail electricity prices. nuclear is expensive, slow to start up (so inefficient to shut down), and has serious risks that come with it.

first of all, China is going full speed ahead, in general. it has increased its 2015 solar PV target in the past year and a half from 5 GW to 10 GW to 20 GW to 40 GW. pretty huge changes. meanwhile, it’s nuclear targets are getting pushed further and further into the future. wonder why?

it’s also installing a ton of wind, btw.

the UK has a very conservative government in place right now that i’m sure has strong ties to rich folks connected to the nuclear lobby.

France has stepped off the nuclear gas pedal and is refocusing on renewables.

please, get your arguments straight before confusing our readers.

And, thanks for the wish. My day is being very sweet so far….

China (26)
Russia (11)
India (7)
Republic of Korea (3)

Two each –
Slovakian Republic
Pakistan
Ukraine
Taiwan
Brazil

One each –
Argentina
Brazil
Finland
France
USA

Fourteen countries currently building nuclear reactors. One
hundred ninety-six countries.

14 / 196 * 100 = 95%

Gosh, thanks for stetting us green idiots straight. We were thinking that the correct answer was 7%. Damn, are we so very stupid….

How could we have missed those astounding, and so obvious, facts?

Thanks, predrag, you’ve impressed us all….

“China has suspended approval for new nuclear power stations following the accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant.

It will also carry out checks at existing reactors and those under construction.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12769392
China seems to be ready to resume its nuclear program but I’ve seen no notification that it has happened yet.

—

“China has increased its national goals for solar deployment, with the National Energy Administration (NEA) calling for 21 GW of solar electric capacity and 400 million square meters of solar thermal collector area by the end of 2015.”
http://www.energetica-international.com/news/china-increases-solar-targets-to-21-gw-of-electric
—

Chernobyl deaths…

“On the death toll of the accident, the report states that twenty-eight emergency workers (“liquidators”) died from acute radiation syndrome including beta burns and 15 patients died from thyroid cancer in the following years, and it roughly estimated that cancer deaths caused by Chernobyl may reach a total of about 4,000″

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Human_impact

Luckily for thousands of Russians we can treat some of the cancers that will be produced and hold the Chernobyl death level under 5,000.

We are not facing a ‘coal or nuclear’ decision. That is a false dichotomy thrown up by the nuclear industry. We are clearly moving to a grid supplied by a mix of renewables and natural gas. Hopefully we’ll be seeing new storage coming on line soon so that we can reduce the role of natural gas.

Sorry, predrag, that nuclear industry propaganda just does not fly here.

France is installing a lot of wind and solar. The UK is not likely to build much, if any, new nuclear. China stopped approving new nuclear plants after Fukushima melted down, they might restart the program but what they have done is to greatly accelerate wind and solar installation.

The citizens of Germany lived with Chernobyl blowing up on their doorstop. They live with continued radiation from that meltdown. They have a lot of reactors built by the same USSR regime and they simply don’t see a need to live with those risks when there are very good alternatives.

Your opinion seems to be, “Ignore the risk. Ignore the people.”.

That does not work very well in countries which have some degree of self-government.

” useful life of PV is about 20 years. ”

The oldest PV installation is now over 30 years old and going strong.

—

$5/watt for nuclear is overnight cost. Due to the number of years that it takes to build them realized cost is roughly double that cost.

—

Installing PV on your roof and using that electricity to charge your car makes sense to me.

Let’s assume you drive 12,000 miles a year and live in a 4.5 avg solar hour part of the country (not the sunny part). You’d need about 2.25kW of solar on your roof. After subsidies you could do that for about $4,500 in some places.

For the next 40 years you’d be driving for a penny a mile. And that price would be locked down for as long as your system lives.

A penny a mile in a 50 mpg gasmobile would require that you find $0.50/gallon gas for the next 40 years. For that you’d need the way back machine permanently set for about 1965.