Here it is!
China’s Climate Goals Hinge on a $440 Billion Nuclear Buildout
China is planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s
^150 new nuclear reactor/power-stations in China, that's a hell of a commitment...
And here is the reminder of why nuclear really is the currently available only solution vs wind/solar. That being you can never get enough wind or solar... as shown on electricitymap.org
Despite Germany spending and having a truly massive amount of wind-farms, the wind doesn't always blow so they thus end up emitting 23x times MORE co2 then nuclear based states/countries.
If we were comparing these technologies like cars and one car emitted 23 times more co2 then the other car it would be considered a complete joke, but we do it everyday with wind/solar renewables. That's the power of politics and MSM broadcast media on peoples minds.

^ electricitymap.org now at this very hour Germany is emitting 23x times more CO2 than nuclear based state Ontario in Canada serving 15million people. Compare with Germany who have 63GW of installed wind-farms but it's only currently generating around 4GW (or 7%) of electricity due to no wind. How can you make it "better"? Installing more wind farms obviously won't work. If we only have a few more years before the world overheats from too much CO2 then is it really a climate emergency or is it politics?
And France serving 66million people with 27grams of co2 per kilowatt hour 10 to 20 times less CO2 than Germany or the tiny population of South Australia at less than 2million people.
Will China in 15 years time look like this? That really would be a remarkable sight and I think logically be the envy of the world.
And here is the current state of emissions from China...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10131511/China-responsible-climate-change-historic-emissions-taken-account.html
I just watched the live stream of ABC's Q and A which was about renewables/nuclear/co2 etc.
I can't believe how uninformative it is, you would learn more chewing on cardboard, but this is where 95% of people gain their knowledge of the world, via forcibly taxpayer extracted and funded broadcast TV, such a backwards ancient technology compared to the internet. It sickens me to the gut that people watch ABC broadcast TV and actually believed they are being informed adequately.
I really believe the world would be a far better place if all TV broadcast spectrum was re-allocated to internet-only technology like 5G/Starlink/Project-Kuiper/etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FaT3CR3Eqo
[youtube]-FaT3CR3Eqo[/youtube]
Another one of those supposedly "debunked" :lol: reports from this time expert engineers from Volvo about how the production of electric cars requires FAR more energy and thus more co2 emissions than petroleum cars to fully manufacture. This because there is a lot of co2 emitted making the copper/nickel/metals/materials for the big lithium battery which adds notable weight to the car...
But like the previous estimates, their claim is once you have driven it a certain distance by recharging it via nuclear/renewables then you have broken even and from there on you are being more green

.
Still there are a lot of drivers out there that really struggle to not destroy a car beyond repairability in under 70,000km
https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/news/volvo-says-electric-car-making-emissions-are-70-higher-than-petrol/ar-AAQjyFK?ocid=msedgntp
On this analysis they include a chart diagram for electric vs petroleum fueled car break even points based on fuel source.
As you can see on the diagram, the cleaner your recharge source then the less distance you need to drive before you beat a petroleum car emissions.
https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAQjq8f.img?h=832&w=1598&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f
