Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Cephalotus]

You totally missed the point of world energy scale. One country requiring 1/40 of electricity can boast of big gains in rebuildable electricity percentage when they are consuming a large part of available world hardware production. To see the whole world doing this will reveal the hard limits to access of non-renewable materials.

This is not true. Germany is a large net exporter(!) of goods and machinery. 8% or 1/12 of all the worlds export in USD is from Germany. (year 2015)

We do this with 1/100 of the worlds population and 1/40 of the worlds electricity.

Tell me where you do see a Limit of materilas with world wide solar and wind energy. I see no fundamental Problems. You could Name silver for PV cells or neodymium for a wind power generator, but both are replaceable and not needed.

Definitly there is enough steel, copper, concrete, glass, silicium and so on available...

There is enough of that stuff to make 1 billion ICE cars which we replace every 7 years

 

[Cephalotus]

It is not A vs B.

?? I didn't say it was. I said that solar for third world countries does far more to improve quality of life than solar for Germany, and as such should have more effort put into it.

Fell free to do it and send them solar panels or money.

For me this sounds more like a twisted excuse like: "the Africans should do something first, before we need to change anything".

 

[Cephalotus]

So in one case you have a chance of release of radioactive material, and in the other you have a guarantee that it will be released. Which is worse?

Obviouly that depends on the amount of radioactivity.

I'm not aware of any coal power plant that made its surounings as radioactive as did nuclear facilities in Kyschtym, Sellafield, Chernobyl, Fukushima (accidently) and many others (planned).

I visited Chernobyl IV some years ago before they put on Sarkophagus II and a accident like that (or Fukushima) would be an ultra expensive disaster over here.

Decontamination of Sellafield is planned to take until 2120 and will cost 121 trillion british pounds (if you want to trust cost calculation of public founded projects over 100 years)

If you want to take the risc or the cost this is perfectly fine for me, as long as your nuke is far away.

Actually for reasons of climate Change I prefer nukes in other countries (far away) over coal power plants. Who wouldn't?

In reality, either coal and nuclear have hopefully reach their peaks gloably and their capacity will be shrinking.

For coal we will have to see if the recent trends continue: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-coal-power-set-for-record-fall-in-2019

Nuclear production in 2018 was lower than in 2004, the Chart is from the nuclear lobby: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx

They dream of adding more capacity, but in reality the market does not sound promissing, Most reactors are old now, almost all companies that had been involved in building nukes have problems or stopped doing so like Westinghouse, Toshiba, GE, Hitachi, Siemens, EDF and others

Remainung companies hat are able to build new nukes are mostly from China, Russia and Korea

You get it from waste. Pig manure, sewage, bagasse,

We are using that since 20 years and since 30-40 years from landfills. Very(!) limited resource and not expandable.

Actually it would be a good thing to reduce our amount of meat "production" (and consumption), which would Limit that resourcen even further.

 

[sendler2112]

This is not true. Germany is a large net exporter(!) of goods and machinery. 8% or 1/12 of all the worlds export in USD is from Germany. (year 2015)

You are not an exporter of wind turbines or solar panels or primary energy. Current german total primary energy from wind and solar combined is 5%. You still get almost twice as much energy from biomass. Much of which is imported from Sweden and the USA. The world is blowing through 17.7 TW average. 150,000 TWh per year. With the efficiency gains from a perfect electrification of all consumption we will still need half of this, Not to mention lifting up the 3 billion people who have thus far been left behind. And more beyond this to provide for the further population growth.
.
Current world wind plus solar is production is 1,600 TWh.
.
2.1%
.
We still add more Carbon fueled energy than wind and solar every year. Wind and solar are not even keeping up with growth. Let alone displacing anything.
.
We are living right now at the peak of a one time, non-repeatable Carbon fueled energy pulse. When we move away from Carbon fuels whether by decision, or eventual depletion, access to total energy and raw materials will recede despite high tech.
.
Scale
.
Things will be much simpler once again in the future. The sooner we realize this and move toward it intelligently, the less painful the transition will be. Everything has to change. We are squandering our primordial energy seed corn on frivolous luxuries.
.
Two wishes wasted. What shall we do with the third?

 

[Cephalotus]

You are not an exporter of wind turbines or solar Panels

This is not so easy to say. Germany exports a significant amount of components that are used for wind and solar power plnats, machinery to build that plants and so on. We even produce signdficant amount of raw materials like Silicon, aluminium, solar glass, materials for rotor blades etc...

If you have actual numbers of our import-export balance in both sectors feel free to link to them.

I only have this, who estimated the import quota for solar at 30% at the moment: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf (page 25)

For wind I do not have actual numbers. The export quota for wind was around 60% some years ago:
https://www.erneuerbareenergien.de/archiv/windkraft-sorgt-fuer-jobs-in-deutschland-150-406-89453.html

(obviously with low installation the export quote rises and gets lower with high domestic installation, so in 2019 with Little new wind installation the export was most likely quite high)

...or primary energy...

Obviously we are a prime energy importer. What's the point about that?

From an energy import perspective the wise thing to do would burn lignite which we have in abunance. As East German did.

Current german total primary energy from wind and solar combined is 5%.

This is a nonsense number.

1kWh electricity from lignite Counts as 2,5kWh of Primary energy
1kWh of electricity from nuclear power Counts as 3kWh of Primary energy
1kWh from wind and solar is counted as 1kWh Primary energy

There is still a way to go, but switching from burning fossil fuels to RE in teh electriicty sector, witching from ICE cars to BEV and switching from burning oil nand gas to electric heat pumps will reduce the primare energy demands in each of that Segment by the factor 3.

So we do not have to increase solar+wind by the factor 20, it is much less than that

(it is also not 1/3rd, because a hydrogen economy lowers efficiency vs. using natural gas)

You still get almost twice as much energy from biomass. Much of which is imported from Sweden and the USA.

This is not true. Please Quote your sources.

There is some biomass import from US, mostly soy beans for our "meat industry" (Germany is a meat exporter)
Biomas Import from Sweden is very low

Most of the biomass imported is simply food, animal Food and construction Wood. There are some imports for energetic use like biofuels and Wood Chips, but they are far, far, far from 50% of our biomass energy.

Today the enormous meat production (and consumption) is the cause for biomass imports.

Source: https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000057801

The world is blowing through 17.7 TW average. 150,000 TWh per year. With the efficiency gains from a perfect electrification of all consumption we will still need half of this, Not to mention lifting up the 3 billion people who have thus far been left behind. And more beyond this to provide for the further population growth.

Yes, it is some way to go.

Today the world builds and sells roughly 70 Million cars each year.

let's say this is 100kW for each car.

So just the car industry is able to produces machinery that translates 7TW of oil into heat and power.

I'm sure that the world would be able to produce 0.5TW of solar and wind energy + the rest, if it just WANTS to do so.

Current world wind plus solar is production is 1,600 TWh.

In 2019 it was 1.404TWh of wind energy and 699TWh of solar energy, which is 2.103TWh in my calculation.

For comaprison: Nuclear power produced 2.563TWh of electricity. I do not know if this includes self cosnumption 8which is quite high in nukes) or if this is usabele net production.

https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2019-HTML.html#_idTextAnchor011

The numbers are in a similar dimension.

Nuclear needed 50-60 years for that, solar and wind 10-20 years.

We are living right now at the peak of a one time, non-repeatable Carbon fueled energy pulse. When we move away from Carbon fuels whether by decision, or eventual depletion, access to total energy and raw materials will recede despite high tech.

If that assumption would be truw, that theer are not enough RAW materials to build a RE world, wouldn't it be wise to be the first to do it and to finish it, while all those ressorces are still avaiable?

Instead the world build 70 Million ICE cars per year, an immense waste of ressources by itself and each of that cars will burn a further 5-10 tonnes of fossil oil within ist short lifespan.

THIS is stupid.

Things will be much simpler once again in the future. The sooner we realize this and move toward it intelligently, the less painful the transition will be. Everything has to change. We are squandering our primordial energy seed corn on frivolous luxuries.

So what do you suggest for yourself? I do you wnat to live and qhat qould that trasnition look like.

I read a lot of that talk, recently in the Mical Morre anti RW film that was linked over here.

People tell mire that 2more is less". The same People that have 200m² houses, 2 ICE cars, eating meat each day and flying x-thousands miles per year.
Those People tell me that RE is not sustainable and that instead we should Focus on some "Transition".

I see a future for the world and for me living in my flat, using an BEV car (or just electric bikes), eating meat 1 per week, using 100% RE for electricity and home heating, a industry that also uses 100% RE and hydrogen and flying mybe less, but more expensive, with syntehtic carbon neutral fuel costing 3€/l vs 0,50€/l today.

That's my vision and it is doable. On a personal scale most can be done even now. Just a bit more expensive than the typical fossil fuel version, but easily doable.

 

[JackFlorey]

I'm not aware of any coal power plant that made its surounings as radioactive as did nuclear facilities in Kyschtym, Sellafield, Chernobyl, Fukushima (accidently) and many others (planned).

I am going to ignore Chernobyl because neither the US nor Germany has any RBMK nuclear plants - so they cannot have the same sort of accident. Germany and the US use PWR's or BWR's, water-moderated reactors that cannot go prompt-critical.

Now let's look at normal operation, since no power plant in Germany has ever had a Fukushima-like accident. From SciAm:

"Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Now let's look at Fukushima. That's the worst case accident for a BWR. Radioactive cesium and iodine were the biggest risks there. People in the nearest town were exposed to (estimated) 30 mSv/yr from the release of radioactive gases and aerosols. Average background radiation is around 3mSv/year in Japan. However, there are many places in the world where the natural background radiation is 50-250 mSv/yr - and no elevated cancer risk has been observed there.

But the proof is in what actually happens to people, not in estimated exposures. And here's the result after three months:

"No harmful health effects were found in 195,345 residents living in the vicinity of the plant who were screened by the end of May 2011. All the 1,080 children tested for thyroid gland exposure showed results within safe limits, according to the report submitted to IAEA in June. By December, government health checks of some 1700 residents who were evacuated from three municipalities showed that two-thirds received an external radiation dose within the normal international limit of 1 mSv/yr, 98% were below 5 mSv/yr, and ten people were exposed to more than 10 mSv."

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/fukushima-radiation-exposure.aspx

Almost ten years after the accident, there has been no significant increase in death rates due to cancer. Indeed, in retrospect, the biggest cause of injury and death after the accident was the rapid evacuation - not the radiation itself.

I visited Chernobyl IV some years ago before they put on Sarkophagus II and a accident like that (or Fukushima) would be an ultra expensive disaster over here.

Agreed. BWRs/PWRs cannot go prompt critical, so that cannot happen in Germany or the US.

Actually for reasons of climate Change I prefer nukes in other countries (far away) over coal power plants. Who wouldn't?

EVERYONE prefers that power plants (coal or nuclear) are far away from them. That, of course, isn't possible. So since you do have to be near such a power plant, the question is whether you want it to be coal or nuclear. And nuclear power plants expose you to far less radiation, on average, than coal plants.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

To add onto Jack's comment, there's actually a LOT of mining that produces more radiation than a hard nuke plant- my old family home was near a lot of blasting for limestone (concrete production) and you'd be surprised how many rads are dredged up that way due to the radon in the soil.

Another big bonus for nuclear plants is their scalability- NASA has shown some molten-salt cooled units as low as 5KW/hr that are about the size of a shipping container, and naturally we have the ones on our Nautilus subs, tho those are nearly all hand-controlled with little computerization (makes them far safer, per the navy boys I've spoken to) and are a far older design.

Get real jack !
A coal plant may fail,..but its unlikely to be due to lack of fuel !..maybe a generator fries or the most common, a safety trip....but in either case there are always multiple other generator units and other plants that take up the slack..that is just normal operational management and back up planning.

There's no standardization within coal plants- a broken part must be machined or rebuilt. I think that's actually what finally killed the Belium coal plant in their capital that's seen so much urban exploration recently.

 

[sendler2112]

...or primary energy...

Obviously we are a prime energy importer. What's the point about that?

Current german total primary energy from wind and solar combined is 5%.

This is a nonsense number.

This is clearly in the published data. Germany totals for year end 2018 show a combined primary energy production of 4.6 % from wind and solar combined. 2019 totals are not published yet but will not be much different.
.

.

 

[JackFlorey]

Fell free to do it and send them solar panels or money.

?? I have; specifically I donated to Let There Be Light, a charity supporting solar power in Africa. How about you?

For me this sounds more like a twisted excuse like: "the Africans should do something first, before we need to change anything".

Why do you think that? It's more important to get solar power to the third world that have zero power right now - but we should be doing both.

Have you installed a solar/battery system yourself?

 

[Dauntless]

Sorry to interrupt the, em, 'LOVE IN,' but you aren't missing the really interesting story that's been developing, are you?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/2/17313174/floating-nuclear-power-plant-russia-academik-lomonosov-chernobyl-titanic

 

[Cephalotus]

This is clearly in the published data. Germany totals for year end 2018 show a combined primary energy production of 4.6 % from wind and solar combined. 2019 totals are not published yet but will not be much different.

I already explained to you why it is nonsense to use primary energy numbers for wind and solar.

In 2018 wind and solar produced 166TWh electricity in Germany.

In 2018 nuclear produced 76TWh electricity.

So most people would say that 166TWh wind+solar is more than 76TWh from nuclear.

But in primary energy charts nuclear is counted as 3 times higher, because you count all the waste heat that make clouds and heats your rivers, too. You also count all the energy the power plant consumes itself.

So in the chart that you used 76TWh nuclear are 6.4% and 166TWh from wind-solar are just 4.6%.

This is the reason why people always use those nonsense PE charts if they want to show you how little the contribution from solar and wind is. It isn't. 166TWh electricity is more than 76TWh electricity, not less.

 

[Cephalotus]

Fell free to do it and send them solar panels or money.

?? I have; specifically I donated to Let There Be Light, a charity supporting solar power in Africa. How about you?

As an engineering student I worked for a company that made prototypes for solar cooking and solar distillation.
In reality in Africa parabolic solar cookers are of little use for many reasons and did injure people (they are used with bigger success in Tibet for tea cooking) and the distillator did not work well with ultra cheap raw materials.

I have also been with "engineers without borders" some years ago and from some travel through Africa and as an solar energy expert myself I do not see the small household light systems as a good idea. They do not live long (as everything that is gifted to Africa) and end up in the countryside, which is not so nice for lead batteries.

I recommend a different approach and this is "community solar" with a responsible person, selling electricity and a business model. But this is of course more complicated especially for donators. They want to give a "lamp", not fund a micro grid system. If you have to pay for your system or if you build it yourself from components chances are much higher that this stuff will last longer, see Bangladesh. (but it is women that are responsible for the solar systems over theer which might help).

Aid for Africa is a very difficult topic, but I see little relevance for our topic which is nuclear+coal vs solar+wind and which is about world wide resources and CO2 emissions. The African shelter lit by kerosene or a small solar lamp is irrelevant for that discussion.

Have you installed a solar/battery system yourself?

wherever possible. I bought my first 50W module 24 years ago as a student. I installed a 5kW PV system at my parents house 15 years ago. (no degradation so far), I have a solar system on the roof where I life (but not mine) and have bought 300W solar just for fun for my electric bikes (solar trailer not finished yet).

I work as an energy consultant for the government which obviously gives me much more leverage than just my own small money.

 

[JackFlorey]

Get real jack !
A coal plant may fail,..but its unlikely to be due to lack of fuel !

Go tell India they are unreal and are imagining things.
====================================
Delhi May Face Blackout As Power Plants Run Out Of Coal, Says Satyendar Jain

Satyendra Jain slammed Union Coal Minister Piyush Goyal for the shortage and said he had written to Mr Goyal on May 17 but the latter had not responded.

DelhiIndo-Asian News Service
Updated: May 25, 2018

New Delhi: Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) may face a blackout as power plants in the region do not have reserve coal for "more than one day", Delhi Power Minister Satyendar Jain said on Friday.

Addressing the media, Mr Jain slammed Union Coal Minister Piyush Goyal for the shortage and said he had written to Mr Goyal on May 17 but the latter had not responded.

"There is no coal in power plants in the NCR. Dadri I, II, Badarpur, Jajjar (plants), none of them have stock (coal) for more than one day," Mr Jain said. "This is a man-made disaster in making."
=================================

Add more solar and wind = burn less coal = no running out of coal = no blackouts.

 

[Hillhater]

Decontamination of Sellafield is planned to take until 2120 and will cost 121 trillion british pounds .....)

Whilst Sellafield is certainly a Nuclear mess that will take untold time and money to restore...
....it is by no means an example of any typical modern Nuclear generation plant.
Sellafield has a unique 70 year history of nuclear development and experimentation with multiple Nuclear technologies. Including fuels and weapons materials production.
It was one of the worlds first commercial nuclear power facilities.
It was also the UK’s, .. (and much of the worlds),.. Nuclear reprocessing (and effectively a Nucclear waste dump) site for many years.
Comparing Sellafield to a modern,. (or future), nuclear reactor, id like comparing a car scrapyard to a modern car dealership showroom.

 

[Hillhater]

Get real jack !
A coal plant may fail,..but its unlikely to be due to lack of fuel !

Go tell India they are unreal and are imagining things.
====================================k
Delhi May Face Blackout As Power Plants Run Out Of Coal, Says Satyendar Jain

Satyendra Jain slammed Union Coal Minister Piyush Goyal for the shortage .........
.

Jack, .. that was 2018..
.......so, did they actually run out of coal ??......or was it just a political point scoring contest ! ..?
Either way, they knew the cause and saw the potential problem well in advance..
...

........," Mr Jain said. "This is a man-made disaster in making."...

A human induced problem, easily controlled and avoided.
Unlike a sudden change in the weather !
India has a history for poorly managed and disorganised coal supplies to it power plants.

 

[jonescg]

On the subject of nuclear, can anyone name for me when the last nuclear power plant was built in a nation which never previously had any experience with nuclear power?

The entire industrial ecosystem required to make nuclear viable is massive and expensive, and is largely the reason they are dotted all over a co-operative places like Europe and North America, or within large industrialised nations with the endogenous capacity (China, Russia, India).

But has a nuclear power plant recently been built in a nation which has no such nuclear history?

I suspect it would never fly in a place like Australia because we wouldn't be paying for just the reactor and generator, we'd need to pay for storage, reprocessing facilities, core fabrication facilities etc etc.

I think already nuclear nations should absolutely exploit their equipment and lean on them as hard as necessary to help the transition. Even refurbish or replace the odd reactor as it hits end of life, and update it with these much vaunted Gen-5 reactors. But for a nuclear noob nation, it would be way more expensive than PV+Wind+storage, and probably take longer to build.

 

[Hillhater]

On the subject of nuclear, can anyone name for me when the last nuclear power plant was built in a nation which never previously had any experience with nuclear power?

Barakah 1, United Arab Emirates: 1,345MW...started commercial operation in Sept last year. ?
Its the first Nuclear power plant in the Arab speaking world.
FYI.. there are currently 55 new nuclear power plants under construction, mostly in the Asian region

I suspect it would never fly in a place like Australia because we wouldn't be paying for just the reactor and generator, we'd need to pay for storage, reprocessing facilities, core fabrication facilities etc etc.

I suspect.. the only thing preventing Australia building a nuclear power plant is “politics”
But if we are really smart, we will wait for those long promissed modular/MSR/Gen 5/etc,..systems to become viable !

 

[Hillhater]

It seems like Germany is having one of its. “ 0.0% wind +solar “. Periods this week. !
No less than 48hrs with wind at less than 5.0GW,...much of it at less than 1.0GW infact,..
And that is from the 54 GW installed countrywide.

 

[JackFlorey]

Jack, .. that was 2018..

Is that so long ago you can't remember it?

.......so, did they actually run out of coal ??......or was it just a political point scoring contest ! ..?
Either way, they knew the cause and saw the potential problem well in advance..

Yes they did. And having more renewables would have let them deal with the problem. (Or they could pay whatever the coal supplier demanded, of course.)

A human induced problem, easily controlled and avoided.

Like everything else we are talking about here.

Unlike a sudden change in the weather !

You can't handle sudden changes in the weather? Hmm. Most people can.

 

[Hillhater]

Unlike a sudden change in the weather !

You can't handle sudden changes in the weather? Hmm. Most people can.

You had better go tell Germany how to do that ....so they dont need to maintain that 100%+ fossil fuel backup on the boil.
(see above post and graphic !)

 

[JackFlorey]

You had better go tell Germany how to do that ....so they dont need to maintain that 100%+ fossil fuel backup on the boil.

Germany seems to have figured it out too. Looks like you are the only person who is confused!

 

[Hillhater]

Yes, i am confused !....as to how anyone would consider maintaining 100% fossil generation as backup for a renewable energy system, is a sustainable solution ?
That has to be the biggest, most expensive, “Bandaid” for a unreliable generation system.!

 

[jonescg]

But if we are really smart, we will wait for those long promissed modular/MSR/Gen 5/etc,..systems to become viable !

Oh, you mean the floating modular power stations which get towed in from another nation to provide us with power?
I've read this, and then wondered, isn't that a massive energy security issue? I mean, at least if we had our own nuclear industry we know we have the uranium to fuel them. But relying on another nation to supply us with big, centralised power AND the fuel to power them? Yeah, nah.

While we wait, we might as well keep building the cheap, non-controversial, low-emissions generation known to work.

 

[Hillhater]

But if we are really smart, we will wait for those long promissed modular/MSR/Gen 5/etc,..systems to become viable !

Oh, you mean the floating modular power stations which get towed in from another nation to provide us with power?
I've read this, and then wondered, isn't that a massive energy security issue? I mean, at least if we had our own nuclear industry we know we have the uranium to fuel them. But relying on another nation to supply us with big, centralised power AND the fuel to power them? Yeah, nah.

Not what i was thinking,.....but now you mention it, we could buy up a fleet of old Nuclear Soviet subs and moor them up around the country..one in each major city... to act as floating power stations.
Keep the weapons onboard also as defense protection....solved 2 problems with one solution
...or not ?...
But maybe something along these lines..
http://www.smrnuclear.com.au/
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/smaller-safer-cheaper-one-company-aims-reinvent-nuclear-reactor-and-save-warming-planet
Or hte Thorium option
https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/

While we wait, we might as well keep building the cheap, non-controversial, low-emissions generation known to work..

I agree, but there seems to be a lot of resistance to building new HELE coal plants !

 

[TheBeastie]

On the subject of nuclear, can anyone name for me when the last nuclear power plant was built in a nation which never previously had any experience with nuclear power?

But has a nuclear power plant recently been built in a nation which has no such nuclear history?

I suspect it would never fly in a place like Australia because we wouldn't be paying for just the reactor and generator, we'd need to pay for storage, reprocessing facilities, core fabrication facilities etc etc.

Wow I can't believe you so frequently comment about energy and what energy countries should use but are so clueless about what countries have nuclear! Or was this deliberate?

There are a ton of countries that have nuclear power that have little industry or known for advanced technology that have nuclear power stations, this includes Africa!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_South_Africa
A lot of countries need baseload power and don't have much fossil fuels so they got someone to build a nuclear powerstation and they just buy the pre-made uranium pellets to fuel it, it's not rocket science.

Here are some of the lesser known countries that have nuclear power stations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Argentina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Bangladesh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Armenia#Nuclear_Power_Plant_and_Nuclear_Fuel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_activities_in_Brazil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_Czech_Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Hungary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_policy_by_country#Mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Pakistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Romania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Slovakia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Spain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Turkey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country#Overview

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another subject, Boston Dynamics have officially started selling one of their robots, for $75k each.
I was thinking that's pretty expensive but if it could replace a few humans then its paid for its self in 2 years and you didn't even need an account to handle its pay or worry about them taking a sick day etc.
Boston Dynamics now sells a robot dog to the public, starting at $74,500
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/06/boston-dynamics-robot-dog-can-be-yours-for-the-low-low-price-of-74500/
I don't know what you could make it do, but in Melbourne we do have a remarkable amount of fresh off the boat people that I have noticed are employed in government work to do incredibly basic tasks like merely just opening the door for people and directing them to the right area for drivers licence registration/paying fines at VicRoads etc.
No wonder why my Melbourne Labor government want to sell off VicRoads, talk about a case of a false economy and being like a dog chewing off its own tail for food.
https://www.afr.com/street-talk/morgan-stanley-ready-to-drive-1b-plus-vicroads-privatisation-20191027-p534n3
https://www.megaphone.org.au/petitions/say-no-to-selling-vicroads

Anyway, these types of robots could probably do low skill jobs or jobs that have are risky health hazards like inspecting for gas leaks etc.
I couldn't help imagine someone on a building site needing a specific tool and asking the robotic dog to go get it would be handy.

The thing I couldn't believe about the Boston Robotic dog is that it only runs for 90minutes on the lithion-cell battery pack.
I think this is where a hydrogen fuel cell could be useful, because what if you want this robot dog to be working all day patrolling an area for security or something, if the robots work is that valuable then I think the extra cost of utilizing hydrogen fuel-cell would be negligible impact to its overall costs.

[youtube]PmPruFdp3WA[/youtube]

[youtube]aFuA50H9uek[/youtube]