China to invest $78 bn to build 110 nuclear power plants by 2030

[Monoriu]

Obviously it's impractical for the city of Hong Kong, but for a large country solar and wind can supply a substansial percentage of the power.

Hong Kong isn't the only large, densely populated Chinese city.  It doesn't work here, it won't work in Shanghai and a bunch of other places. 

Plus, it isn't just a matter of if "it works".  It has to be "better" than other options.  For a public policy maker, you don't just choose an option because "it works".  Your financial resources are limited, and you should pick the best option out of those on the table.  For wind and solar to win, they have to be better than the, well, nuclear option. 

[Jaron]

Obviously it's impractical for the city of Hong Kong, but for a large country solar and wind can supply a substansial percentage of the power.

Hong Kong isn't the only large, densely populated Chinese city.  It doesn't work here, it won't work in Shanghai and a bunch of other places. 

Plus, it isn't just a matter of if "it works".  It has to be "better" than other options.  For a public policy maker, you don't just choose an option because "it works".  Your financial resources are limited, and you should pick the best option out of those on the table.  For wind and solar to win, they have to be better than the, well, nuclear option.

Is that measured only by output? How heavily weighted are potential disasters/environmental factors?

[jimmy olsen]

Obviously it's impractical for the city of Hong Kong, but for a large country solar and wind can supply a substansial percentage of the power.

Hong Kong isn't the only large, densely populated Chinese city.  It doesn't work here, it won't work in Shanghai and a bunch of other places. 

Plus, it isn't just a matter of if "it works".  It has to be "better" than other options.  For a public policy maker, you don't just choose an option because "it works".  Your financial resources are limited, and you should pick the best option out of those on the table.  For wind and solar to win, they have to be better than the, well, nuclear option.

Germany is very densely populated and it isn't that sunny, yet they produce almost 7% of their energy with solar power.

[Eddie Teach]

7%! For realz? 

[Tonitrus]

All their nuclear plants will be wiped out by that EMP. 

[Josquius]

I for one welcome this.  There is a nuclear power plant that is like 50 miles away from Hong Kong, and it was built in the 80s.  Pretty sure some of the electricity that I use comes from there.  I don't think there is much choice.  The air quality in China is so bad that it is a much bigger risk to health than the risk associated with nuclear reactors.  Solar and wind are not economical, and they have already built hydro power in most places where those can be built.  See Three Gorges Dam. 

Denmark disagrees.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand

[Admiral Yi]

Your article doesn't mention the cost-effectiveness of wind.

[Monoriu]

I for one welcome this.  There is a nuclear power plant that is like 50 miles away from Hong Kong, and it was built in the 80s.  Pretty sure some of the electricity that I use comes from there.  I don't think there is much choice.  The air quality in China is so bad that it is a much bigger risk to health than the risk associated with nuclear reactors.  Solar and wind are not economical, and they have already built hydro power in most places where those can be built.  See Three Gorges Dam. 

Denmark disagrees.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand

On an unusually windy day.  What about the days when there is little to no wind?  Unlike Denmark, China cannot hope to import electricity to meet its needs.  China's electricity usage is too high, and most of the countries near China probably don't have much spare capacity in the first place. 

[The Larch]

I for one welcome this.  There is a nuclear power plant that is like 50 miles away from Hong Kong, and it was built in the 80s.  Pretty sure some of the electricity that I use comes from there.  I don't think there is much choice.  The air quality in China is so bad that it is a much bigger risk to health than the risk associated with nuclear reactors.  Solar and wind are not economical, and they have already built hydro power in most places where those can be built.  See Three Gorges Dam. 

Denmark disagrees.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand

On an unusually windy day.  What about the days when there is little to no wind?  Unlike Denmark, China cannot hope to import electricity to meet its needs.  China's electricity usage is too high, and most of the countries near China probably don't have much spare capacity in the first place.

That's why you have backup sources, like hydro, that can work on a constant basis and increase output to cover for shortfalls in other parts of the mix. Nobody argues for 100% wind.

[crazy canuck]

But that is why China needs nuclear plants - it is the only non fossil fuel source that will be consistent.  China cannot rely on an external grid

[Tamas]

Obviously it's impractical for the city of Hong Kong, but for a large country solar and wind can supply a substansial percentage of the power.

Hong Kong isn't the only large, densely populated Chinese city.  It doesn't work here, it won't work in Shanghai and a bunch of other places. 

Plus, it isn't just a matter of if "it works".  It has to be "better" than other options.  For a public policy maker, you don't just choose an option because "it works".  Your financial resources are limited, and you should pick the best option out of those on the table.  For wind and solar to win, they have to be better than the, well, nuclear option.

Germany is very densely populated and it isn't that sunny, yet they produce almost 7% of their energy with solar power.

AND heavily subsidised by the tax payer!

I don't know though if the same model as in the UK, where part of the electricity price is going for solar subsidising. So yes, in effect, the poor are paying so the rich can save money.

[Monoriu]

I for one welcome this.  There is a nuclear power plant that is like 50 miles away from Hong Kong, and it was built in the 80s.  Pretty sure some of the electricity that I use comes from there.  I don't think there is much choice.  The air quality in China is so bad that it is a much bigger risk to health than the risk associated with nuclear reactors.  Solar and wind are not economical, and they have already built hydro power in most places where those can be built.  See Three Gorges Dam. 

Denmark disagrees.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand

On an unusually windy day.  What about the days when there is little to no wind?  Unlike Denmark, China cannot hope to import electricity to meet its needs.  China's electricity usage is too high, and most of the countries near China probably don't have much spare capacity in the first place.

That's why you have backup sources, like hydro, that can work on a constant basis and increase output to cover for shortfalls in other parts of the mix. Nobody argues for 100% wind.

Hydro is no where near enough.  80% of China's gigantic power output is generated by fossil fuels.  We are talking about a country with 1.3-1.4 billion people, not Denmark with 5 million people.  Hong Kong alone has 7.2 million.  If not fossil fuels, that backup power has to be nuclear. 

[Maladict]

It isn't just the price of the solar panels or the wind turbines.  It is whether they are practical.  Even if you put solar panels on the rooftop of every building in Hong Kong, the amount of electricity generated will be negligible for our needs.  In a public housing estate for example, 25,000 people live in eight buildings.  The surface area of the rooftop of those eight buildings is no where near enough.  You also need to account for the inherent instabilities in the wind and solar power generation systems.  You don't get wind all the time, and you don't get sunlight all the time.

Plenty of windows though.

[Valmy]

It isn't just the price of the solar panels or the wind turbines.  It is whether they are practical.  Even if you put solar panels on the rooftop of every building in Hong Kong, the amount of electricity generated will be negligible for our needs.  In a public housing estate for example, 25,000 people live in eight buildings.  The surface area of the rooftop of those eight buildings is no where near enough.  You also need to account for the inherent instabilities in the wind and solar power generation systems.  You don't get wind all the time, and you don't get sunlight all the time. 

True when you have such enormous energy needs in one building with a tiny rooftop, rooftop solar is probably not going to satisfy the needs of the building. But China itself has a bit more empty space.

In any case China is already a world leader in the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines and already use them extensively so I would be surprised if they were not in their energy strategy.

[Valmy]

On an unusually windy day.  What about the days when there is little to no wind?  Unlike Denmark, China cannot hope to import electricity to meet its needs.  China's electricity usage is too high, and most of the countries near China probably don't have much spare capacity in the first place. 

Well you have turbines in different places. In Texas we have this handy effect where the wind blows on the coastal plain whenever it is not blowing in the western desert.