Since the start of 2022, China has completed an additional five domestic reactor builds, with their completion times ranging from just under five years to just over 7 years.
For argument sake, let's say it takes China five years to build five 2GW plants (10GW). Let's assume 25 plants can be in this 5 year pipeline at anytime.
Rounding up from China's population, assuming instantaneous training and transformation of the global population to a similar level as China's nuclear industry, we can then assume that 60 GW can be delivered annually, globally.
With a global electricity usage of 23,000 TWh a year translating into 2.6 TW required hourly, and a capacity factor of 80 percent, it would take 54 years to completely transition to nuclear - call it 40 years to account for existing renewables, building ~1300 nuclear plants
Looking at China's uranium consumption for nuclear, we can estimate new requirements of 17,000 tons of uranium per year. So in 2065, 40 years after ham on nuclear, we'll need 750,000 tons of uranium annually.
One estimate is that about 8 million tonnes of uranium is recoverable at $260 a kg (uranium is currently ~100 a kg).
That's fine, surely we'll have a good ten years of full uranium consumption before it becomes unviable? Unfortunately not, because with the additional requirements each year, we'd hit that recoverability/cost limit within 30 years.
Too long, too expensive and too hard.
(Come back when thorium SMRs are viable though, those could be good)
Did your calculation account for the fact that energy and economic growth having an almost 1:1 relation, meaning a compound growth of ~3% economic growth every year will add up quadrupling the energy requirements in 50 years.
I don't think that's actually true - it might have been from 1940s USA to the early 1980s but I don't think it holds weight anymore.
For example, if there was total electrification of cars and heating within 5 years, electricity demand would increase unimaginably while GDP would barely move.
Why does it take too long? Because there are too many people who believe it's too dangerous
Because it's genuinely complex thing?
For argument sake, let's say it takes China five years to build five 2GW plants (10GW). Let's assume 25 plants can be in this 5 year pipeline at anytime.
Rounding up from China's population, assuming instantaneous training and transformation of the global population to a similar level as China's nuclear industry, we can then assume that 60 GW can be delivered annually, globally.
With a global electricity usage of 23,000 TWh a year translating into 2.6 TW required hourly, and a capacity factor of 80 percent, it would take 54 years to completely transition to nuclear - call it 40 years to account for existing renewables, building ~1300 nuclear plants
Looking at China's uranium consumption for nuclear, we can estimate new requirements of 17,000 tons of uranium per year. So in 2065, 40 years after ham on nuclear, we'll need 750,000 tons of uranium annually.
One estimate is that about 8 million tonnes of uranium is recoverable at $260 a kg (uranium is currently ~100 a kg).
That's fine, surely we'll have a good ten years of full uranium consumption before it becomes unviable? Unfortunately not, because with the additional requirements each year, we'd hit that recoverability/cost limit within 30 years.
Too long, too expensive and too hard.
(Come back when thorium SMRs are viable though, those could be good)
why are you assuming that nuclear has to completely replace all other forms of energy, whether renewable or not, to be worth building?
Death to America
I didn't - I cut 16 years off the timeline, or about 30 per cent
That's accurate enough for a thought experiment that turns 80 percent of the world's population into China
Did your calculation account for the fact that energy and economic growth having an almost 1:1 relation, meaning a compound growth of ~3% economic growth every year will add up quadrupling the energy requirements in 50 years.
I don't think that's actually true - it might have been from 1940s USA to the early 1980s but I don't think it holds weight anymore.
For example, if there was total electrification of cars and heating within 5 years, electricity demand would increase unimaginably while GDP would barely move.
Capitalism is generally also horrible at building things, even if the decision is finally made.