and are transitioning to solar and wind? Not to mention safety reasons? I never thought of China as caring much about safety or pollution, really.

That's why they're passing everyone else in hydro, wind, solar, and coal too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112788909

There is no "trend away from nuclear" in China. There's a strong trend toward nuclear.

And China is far from the only example.

That gulf is expected to widen.

Nor was that a true statement (they spent FAR more than $9B in 2014).

Sneider used two different methods for estimating spend on each technology. The one that he used for nuclear very "conveniently" only counted reactors that began construction during that year (making the Fukushima pause look artificially large).

If he does the same thing for 2015 (I doubt that he will), then the number shoots up as 6-8 reactors begin construction during the year.

But hey! If you want to go on record as believing that a country can have ~25 GWs of nuclear under construction for a mere $9Billion/year (and falling)... by all means.

It isn't that I don't trust you, it is just that you tend to fudge the facts a lot.

As an aside - on the same issue of fudging what references actually say, now that I have specifics from you on the irsn paper I'll be doing a more thorough evaluation of your assertions. You'll see it sometime this evening.

It isn't that I don't trust you, it is just that you tend to fudge the facts a lot.

Lol. You're not a liar... you just don't tell the truth very often ? How touching.

For which claim are you seeking evidence? Schneider's document tells you where he gets his numbers from... but it's simple enough to decide for yourself whether the claim is at all plausible. They're putting at least half a dozen new reactors into service this year (with several more in the next couple years). Does it strike you as even possible that they did that and only spent $9Billion in 2014? If it does, don't you have to drop any claims to nuclear being too expensive?

For ongoing costs? I can point you to any number of articles showing the number of reactors starting construction in 2015/2016/2017. You're left with the same quandary... is it possible for the $9Billion figure to decline yet start construction on 22 new units in three years?

I'll be doing a more thorough evaluation of your assertions. You'll see it sometime this evening.

Is there really a need? Surely you can look up the multiple Gen IV reactor models that are completing prototypes over the next decade and know that whatever it is they're saying... it isn't that there's really only one that will even reach a prototype phase in the next 35 years. I have no doubt that you can spin something else from the report as not quite saying what I said that it said... but you obviously won't find them saying that it's wasting time/money to work on GenIV reactors... nor that there's "no answer for the drawbacks" (when they spend multiple pages going over the answers).

http://world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/