China to Build Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor in 2025(spectrum.ieee.org)
spectrum.ieee.org
China to Build Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor in 2025
https://spectrum.ieee.org/chinas-thorium-molten-salt-reactor
140 comments
Well, good. It's a shame nobody else has stepped up to do this first. Maybe China doing it first will help get the ball rolling.
India stepped up first, as for some time now:
https://youtu.be/k-o8zYEEsik?si=ZNcl0nNQa5DVvGmq
Though looks like China might win the race.
https://youtu.be/k-o8zYEEsik?si=ZNcl0nNQa5DVvGmq
Though looks like China might win the race.
Their ball is already rolling. They put a pair of high temperature gas cooled pebble bed reactors into operation a little more than a year ago. They're actively exploring every avenue of nuclear power without restraint, including thorium and fast breeders. It hasn't yet occurred to the Chinese that the prosperity afforded by abundant energy is a problem they're supposed to be solving.
Oh, they know. They've added 200GW of solar power this year.
> the prosperity afforded by abundant energy is a problem they're supposed to be solving.
What does this mean? Did you misplace a word somewhere? Why would prosperity be a problem?
What does this mean? Did you misplace a word somewhere? Why would prosperity be a problem?
The way I read it is that the amount of energy available for direct use translates directly to the quality of life. The more energy they have, the more they can do with it. Plus if it’s clean and readily available. Instead of being world’s factory for garbage, or figuring out how to invade Taiwan, figure out how to supply clean, “reasonably cheap” nuclear energy.
Any nation with effectively unlimited energy will develop directed energy weaponry.
Well, good. It's a shame nobody else has stepped up to do this first. Maybe China doing it first will help get the ball rolling. /s
In all seriousness, I think they were referring to getting everyone else's proverbial balls rolling.
In all seriousness, I think they were referring to getting everyone else's proverbial balls rolling.
"China's energy independence will threaten our national security!" -- trump, probably...
Well, at some non trivial level it’s also true.
The petrodollar and the US’s central role in protecting/enabling it is great for US national security.
The petrodollar and the US’s central role in protecting/enabling it is great for US national security.
I think the petrodollar has been given more weight than it deserves. The dollar's utility enabling international trade has more to do with the stability, freedom and general availability, than with the US enforcing it in any way.
The US spends more on its military than any other country, and actively gets involved in foreign affairs on this front constantly.
And has bases in every country in the Middle East except Iran - [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_in...]
The dollar is strong because the US military is everywhere. The US military is everywhere because the dollar is strong.
And oil is the strongest and biggest motivation for all this, but not the only one.
Though the US military burns massive amounts of oil to operate.
And has bases in every country in the Middle East except Iran - [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_in...]
The dollar is strong because the US military is everywhere. The US military is everywhere because the dollar is strong.
And oil is the strongest and biggest motivation for all this, but not the only one.
Though the US military burns massive amounts of oil to operate.
Not quite.
You should look, for example, into the events of 1971, specifically, US policy regarding foreign exchange rates. Using dominant US dollar position, the US has achieved re-evaluation of exchange rates favoring US exports. As a concrete example, US Treasury Secretary drove the pressure to open European agriculture markets to US exports, weakening European farming industry in the process. Similar moves were made against Japan and South Korea.
I’m pretty sure I first heard about China doing this 15 years ago or so. I guess it just takes a long time to go from project planning to reactor?
15 yrs is not that bad from conception/design to a prototype.
You could argue the US did this first with the 1964 oak ridge experimental reactor. Still it's good China is continuing the experimental reactors. That's how science progresses.
No one's really tried producing a commercial thorium reactor because it isn't really commercial so far - the costs are much higher than uranium.
No one's really tried producing a commercial thorium reactor because it isn't really commercial so far - the costs are much higher than uranium.
[deleted]
They will hopefully run their first reactor in Switzerland by 2026/2027.
Woah, looks like this article has a major error in it right up front:
"The project follows a 2-MW experimental version completed in 2021 and operated since then. "
They completed the TMSR-LF1 back then, and got authorization to turn it on, but have never announced startup or operation, as far as I'm aware. I've actually been bracing for the headline since 2021 because it would be the first time we operated a molten salt reactor since Oak Ridge's MSRE shut down in 1969.
For all its purported benefits, fluid nuclear fuel has major challenges because the extraordinarily radioactive fission products are no longer held up inside the fuel pins, but rather are flowing around the entire primary system, coming into intimate contact with (and plating out on) pumps, heat exchangers, the vessel wall, instruments, valves, etc. etc. My guess is that they ran into some trouble with containing this, or remotely maintaining the primary equipment.
FWIW, the US started up a commercial thorium-fueled reactor back in 1961 at Indian Point 1 [1] (previously known as the Consolidated Edison Thorium Reactor [2]). We replaced the thorium with enriched uranium in the second core, and all subsequent cores, because it was a lot more economical.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sWqmPyoYxw
[2] https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015086582338&se...
"The project follows a 2-MW experimental version completed in 2021 and operated since then. "
They completed the TMSR-LF1 back then, and got authorization to turn it on, but have never announced startup or operation, as far as I'm aware. I've actually been bracing for the headline since 2021 because it would be the first time we operated a molten salt reactor since Oak Ridge's MSRE shut down in 1969.
For all its purported benefits, fluid nuclear fuel has major challenges because the extraordinarily radioactive fission products are no longer held up inside the fuel pins, but rather are flowing around the entire primary system, coming into intimate contact with (and plating out on) pumps, heat exchangers, the vessel wall, instruments, valves, etc. etc. My guess is that they ran into some trouble with containing this, or remotely maintaining the primary equipment.
FWIW, the US started up a commercial thorium-fueled reactor back in 1961 at Indian Point 1 [1] (previously known as the Consolidated Edison Thorium Reactor [2]). We replaced the thorium with enriched uranium in the second core, and all subsequent cores, because it was a lot more economical.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sWqmPyoYxw
[2] https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015086582338&se...
What makes uranium more economical, fuel production or some aspect of operation? And if it's the first one, is that just lack of scale for thorium or something else?
Uranium is pretty abundant. The US has a lot, China twice as much, Kazakhstan a lot more, and Australia puts everyone to shame.
Thorium isn't ready to be fuel and must be enriched (granted, you need to do this for uranium too but some is naturally in a fissile state). So there's things like breeder reactors that enrich during the cycle but this is challenging and presents other issues such as turning it into weapons manufacturing (increase proliferation concerns).
There's a lot of small details that matter a lot. Fwiw, the parent has written a fair amount on this and runs a website with a lot of useful information for anyone curious. You can check their comments too as they usually participate anytime nuclear comes up
https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html
Thorium isn't ready to be fuel and must be enriched (granted, you need to do this for uranium too but some is naturally in a fissile state). So there's things like breeder reactors that enrich during the cycle but this is challenging and presents other issues such as turning it into weapons manufacturing (increase proliferation concerns).
There's a lot of small details that matter a lot. Fwiw, the parent has written a fair amount on this and runs a website with a lot of useful information for anyone curious. You can check their comments too as they usually participate anytime nuclear comes up
https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html
Thorium is more abundant than uranium and as said in the article China already has huge amounts of extracted thorium as a waste product from the extraction of rare-earth metals.
Thorium must not be enriched and it cannot be enriched like uranium, because it has only one isotope with a long life, thorium 232, which is the only natural isotope.
Natural thorium is not usable as a fission fuel, but it can be transformed into uranium 233, which is a fission fuel, by another nuclear reactor.
The extraction of uranium 233 from thorium has nothing to do with uranium isotopic enrichment. It is a process orders of magnitude simpler, because it is just a normal separation of distinct chemical elements.
This is actually the reason why thorium reactors have been avoided, because it has been considered that it is too easy to separate the uranium 233 from the fuel, which can be used for making nuclear weapons.
Thorium must not be enriched and it cannot be enriched like uranium, because it has only one isotope with a long life, thorium 232, which is the only natural isotope.
Natural thorium is not usable as a fission fuel, but it can be transformed into uranium 233, which is a fission fuel, by another nuclear reactor.
The extraction of uranium 233 from thorium has nothing to do with uranium isotopic enrichment. It is a process orders of magnitude simpler, because it is just a normal separation of distinct chemical elements.
This is actually the reason why thorium reactors have been avoided, because it has been considered that it is too easy to separate the uranium 233 from the fuel, which can be used for making nuclear weapons.
You're right that thorium can't be enriched because there's only one isotope. It needs to be bred to Uranium-233 to work. However, breeding has been more expensive and costly than enrichment, and this is the crux of why thorium use wasn't expanded in the past. To breed thorium to uranium-233, you need a breeder reactor, and you need a chemical separation facility. Together, these are more expensive to build and operate than a centrifuge and simpler non-breeder reactor.
In this sense, I disagree that the process is orders of magnitude simpler. I'd argue that it's the opposite!
The idea that thorium-derived material can't be easily used to make nuclear explosives is an unfortunately persistent myth. You can easily make very nice weapons material from thorium. As the Livermore weapons designers once said:
"If today's weapons were based on U-233, [we] would have no interest in switching to plutonium" [1]
[1] https://www.osti.gov/biblio/79078
In this sense, I disagree that the process is orders of magnitude simpler. I'd argue that it's the opposite!
The idea that thorium-derived material can't be easily used to make nuclear explosives is an unfortunately persistent myth. You can easily make very nice weapons material from thorium. As the Livermore weapons designers once said:
"If today's weapons were based on U-233, [we] would have no interest in switching to plutonium" [1]
[1] https://www.osti.gov/biblio/79078
> This is actually the reason why thorium reactors have been avoided, because it has been considered that it is too easy to separate the uranium 233 from the fuel, which can be used for making nuclear weapons.
This is absolutely not the reason thorium reactors have been avoided at all.
The reality is that uranium enrichment infrastructure existed and fuel isn't a huge part of the cost.
Most of the funding happened in the early days and they were of course using uranium, people back then figured that uranium would run out and were interested in breedres. But pretty quickly, uranium was found to be pretty common.
Uranium is also just better unless you are doing a thorium thermal breeder. And that design only really works well with a pretty complex reactor setup that most people were simply not interested in.
This is absolutely not the reason thorium reactors have been avoided at all.
The reality is that uranium enrichment infrastructure existed and fuel isn't a huge part of the cost.
Most of the funding happened in the early days and they were of course using uranium, people back then figured that uranium would run out and were interested in breedres. But pretty quickly, uranium was found to be pretty common.
Uranium is also just better unless you are doing a thorium thermal breeder. And that design only really works well with a pretty complex reactor setup that most people were simply not interested in.
> Thorium is more abundant than uranium
> Thorium must not be enriched and it cannot be enriched like uranium
> The extraction of uranium 233 from thorium ... is a process orders of magnitude simpler
[deleted]
Isn't thorium also pretty abundant? Judging by this, the US has around six times as much thorium as uranium:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_thorium_r...
I've also never really gotten the proliferation concern. I mean, sure, you don't want to sell a breeder reactor to Iran. But why can't you sell one to PG&E? Are we that concerned that California could get the bomb?
Plus, isn't the proliferation thing supposed to be one of the advantages of thorium, since you can't feasibly make a bomb out of the uranium-233 it gets bred into?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_thorium_r...
I've also never really gotten the proliferation concern. I mean, sure, you don't want to sell a breeder reactor to Iran. But why can't you sell one to PG&E? Are we that concerned that California could get the bomb?
Plus, isn't the proliferation thing supposed to be one of the advantages of thorium, since you can't feasibly make a bomb out of the uranium-233 it gets bred into?
>A declassified 1966 memo from the US nuclear program stated that uranium-233 has been shown to be highly satisfactory as a weapons material (wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233#Weapon_material)
From the same article, apparently the infeasiblity is that pure uranium-233 could work, but a normal breeder reactor would also produce a small amount of uranium-232, which is fine for power reactors but not bombs. If you have the resources of the US DoD then you can design a special breeder reactor that uses special thorium, but by that point you could just make one that breeds plutonium out of uranium too.
Although in theory a U-233 bomb would work just fine, the fact is that very few U-233 bombs were ever made. I don't think that more than 10, by all the nuclear powers combined. One way or another U-233 is not as good a bomb-making material in practice as it is in theory.
Yup.
The big issue with Thorium is it isn’t fissile at first, and requires an existing nuclear reactor and careful fuel management to actually be usable in a reactor.
The big issue with Thorium is it isn’t fissile at first, and requires an existing nuclear reactor and careful fuel management to actually be usable in a reactor.
> Isn't thorium also pretty abundant?
The reason I brought up uranium is that it is easier to fissile. So sure, there's more thorium but it requires more processing. Why use it when we aren't concerned about uranium access? Uranium is already "cheap". (We could get into an analogy with different types of oil if that helps. Like why the US produces so much, exports it, then buys a different type)
> I've also never really gotten the proliferation concern.
1) sure, the US doesn't care if California gets a bomb, but Russia and China sure do.
2) Breeder reactors are reactors that make higher elements.
Discussion of thorium are often extremely over simplified. Proliferation always ALWAYS must involve international relationships. When we get into that the logic changes. You need to consider a lot of higher order effects/connections since everything is always being used as leverage for other things.
Breeding is also a very complicated topic. Just like enrichment. Look at the Iran deal. They can do enrichment but only do much, right?[0]. Often fine because it's hard to scale and generally noticeable. But the same is true for breeding. Instead of turning one atom into a different isotope (e.g U238 -> U235) you change an atom to a different atom (e.g. Th233 -> Pa233 -> U233). This all happens in the reactor. It's hard to separate but hard to track. You can also keep breeding (fast reactor = more/high energy neutrons), where do you think plutonium comes from? The reason it is better for proliferation concerns is it increases the difficulty. At worst, you need to start earlier. But what I wanted to combat is the misinformation that thorium __can't __ be used for proliferation, making it safe for.., idk, Iran? It's good to add more barriers.
I'll also add waste. This is often discussed too. This is again fraught with nuance. We can dramatically reduce waste but we don't. There just isn't much of it and doing more fission is less economical. That is, unless you don't have lots of uranium laying around. That's the case with France, so they "recycle" their waste and in the process this dramatically reduces it. You can fit over 50 years of waste in a Costco and they do. You also can use similar technologies as thorium would need with uranium and still reduce waste. So that points us back to the opening: yes, thorium is abundant, but why go through all that effort when we got plenty of uranium which is cheap and efficient?
I recommend poking around AcidBurn's website. He has a lot of good information and I think he's written well in a way that's fairly approachable (it is nuclear, it's by default not approachable and easy to think you understand much more than you do. If you went through a physics degree this is often a confusing class taken at the upper level).
[0] When they broke the agreement and made more they suspiciously only made a small amount more which would take a long time to get enough for weapons. But they were also loud. Great strategy because public gets afraid, it's a threat, but they also signal that they're willing you deal but want to renegotiate (only experts would know this though). The interesting part is how their best weapon was our own fear and ignorance.
> But what I wanted to combat is the misinformation that thorium __can't __ be used for proliferation
Nobody serious is actually saying that.
What people are actually saying that any nation would be completely fucking insane to attempt to start their nuclear program with this method. When there are proven method that already work, are far easier and with existing equipment.
Plus, using U233 also leads to the creation of elements that you really don't want and are unpractical for a long term nuclear defense policy. And they are equally as unpractical for hiding nuclear material.
No country so far has used this method for a reason, and no country will either. And that argument doesn't matter for most western nations anyway.
> We can dramatically reduce waste but we don't.
Lots of things aren't done until they are done. We should and with a cyclical thorium fuel cycle we could.
While nuclear waste isn't a real problem, we still have millions of people who think it is, and to have clear solution that anybody can just point out, is much better of an argument winner then 'just ignore the waste its fine'. Even if it is actually fine.
> There just isn't much of it and doing more fission is less economical.
Not sure what you mean. I don't think its actually true that fission isn't economical specially if you are thinking about it from a country perspective.
I did some calculation with pretty conservative assumptions for cost, using Germany at the start of the 'Grünewende' and the cost of all that. And I think nuclear would have been a far better deal for them, and its not even really close.
> That's the case with France, so they "recycle" their waste and in the process this dramatically reduces it.
They are using a very complex process. Part of the reason why in the 60s some of the smartest minds looked into molten salt is because that's in many ways easier to work with then complex solid fuels.
> So that points us back to the opening: yes, thorium is abundant, but why go through all that effort when we got plenty of uranium which is cheap and efficient?
In general you are right but a few points, uranium isn't actually that cheap. We restrict what our reactors can do because only low enriched is commercially available, limiting some of the cool things we could be doing. Enriched uranium was artificially cheap because of Russian policy. And now to supply enough, the West will need to increase its own enrichment again.
Second, its only not a big factor of the cost because PWR plants have pretty high operating cost. If you can get the labor cost down, the capital cost down, and the maintenance cost down, and the fuel cost down, you have something potentially interesting.
This of course matters far more when you are doing this as a country strategically. For an individual plant or company its not worth doing.
The things that actually makes thorium special, and an actual improvement over uranium is that you can do a thermal breeder.
Nobody serious is actually saying that.
What people are actually saying that any nation would be completely fucking insane to attempt to start their nuclear program with this method. When there are proven method that already work, are far easier and with existing equipment.
Plus, using U233 also leads to the creation of elements that you really don't want and are unpractical for a long term nuclear defense policy. And they are equally as unpractical for hiding nuclear material.
No country so far has used this method for a reason, and no country will either. And that argument doesn't matter for most western nations anyway.
> We can dramatically reduce waste but we don't.
Lots of things aren't done until they are done. We should and with a cyclical thorium fuel cycle we could.
While nuclear waste isn't a real problem, we still have millions of people who think it is, and to have clear solution that anybody can just point out, is much better of an argument winner then 'just ignore the waste its fine'. Even if it is actually fine.
> There just isn't much of it and doing more fission is less economical.
Not sure what you mean. I don't think its actually true that fission isn't economical specially if you are thinking about it from a country perspective.
I did some calculation with pretty conservative assumptions for cost, using Germany at the start of the 'Grünewende' and the cost of all that. And I think nuclear would have been a far better deal for them, and its not even really close.
> That's the case with France, so they "recycle" their waste and in the process this dramatically reduces it.
They are using a very complex process. Part of the reason why in the 60s some of the smartest minds looked into molten salt is because that's in many ways easier to work with then complex solid fuels.
> So that points us back to the opening: yes, thorium is abundant, but why go through all that effort when we got plenty of uranium which is cheap and efficient?
In general you are right but a few points, uranium isn't actually that cheap. We restrict what our reactors can do because only low enriched is commercially available, limiting some of the cool things we could be doing. Enriched uranium was artificially cheap because of Russian policy. And now to supply enough, the West will need to increase its own enrichment again.
Second, its only not a big factor of the cost because PWR plants have pretty high operating cost. If you can get the labor cost down, the capital cost down, and the maintenance cost down, and the fuel cost down, you have something potentially interesting.
This of course matters far more when you are doing this as a country strategically. For an individual plant or company its not worth doing.
The things that actually makes thorium special, and an actual improvement over uranium is that you can do a thermal breeder.
> Nobody serious is actually saying that.
> any nation would be completely fucking insane to attempt to start their nuclear program with this method
| "If today's weapons were based on U-233, [we] would have no interest in switching to plutonium"
> then 'just ignore the waste its fine'
I said
>> You also can use similar technologies as thorium would need with uranium and still reduce waste.
> have clear solution that anybody can just point out
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42558370
[1] (pdf, it's on the last page) https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/79078
Commence, maybe. Given their lead in pebble bed, I wonder why? Probably competing teams and competing funding and goals. Thorium was in test decades ago in the USA and its applicability to large scale power with lower proliferation risk is given. I think the article's pointing out how much usable thorium China has as a side effect of rare earth mining may get to the heart of things: people with giant trash piles look for ways to monetise.
China has a portfolio strategy when it comes to nuclear technology (and energy systems in general).
[deleted]
They are pretty diverse with all technologies. Browsing Alibaba it's amazing the range of stuff you can get.
It's almost a free for all without too much worries about regulation whether cars, nuclear, viral gain of function, high speed trains etc.
It's almost a free for all without too much worries about regulation whether cars, nuclear, viral gain of function, high speed trains etc.
Kai-Fu Lee gives great insight into the engineering culture in AI Superpowers.
What I get from that book is they have a culture of a free for all that anything can be copied and ripped off so there is no standing still to admire your work.
Innovate or get copied and innovated out of existence.
A stark contrast to what we have evolved in the US. Innovate and then use the profits of innovation to buy legislation that eliminates competition.
There is no mystery how this plays out over a 50 year time window.
What I get from that book is they have a culture of a free for all that anything can be copied and ripped off so there is no standing still to admire your work.
Innovate or get copied and innovated out of existence.
A stark contrast to what we have evolved in the US. Innovate and then use the profits of innovation to buy legislation that eliminates competition.
There is no mystery how this plays out over a 50 year time window.
Nah.. it doesn't work that way.
True Innovation comes from the heart, and most mainland Chinese have lost touch of their hearts - you can even see that foreshadowed in ài the character for Love (爱/愛)。The simplified version just pretended the heart 心 is not in the center of it..
You may have step-by-step progress in China, like going from 110 to 111.
But there have never been and will never be any 0 to 1 kind of innovation in China.. maybe at most gimmicks and copying orchestrated by the Beijing State itself.
True Innovation comes from the heart, and most mainland Chinese have lost touch of their hearts - you can even see that foreshadowed in ài the character for Love (爱/愛)。The simplified version just pretended the heart 心 is not in the center of it..
You may have step-by-step progress in China, like going from 110 to 111.
But there have never been and will never be any 0 to 1 kind of innovation in China.. maybe at most gimmicks and copying orchestrated by the Beijing State itself.
> A stark contrast to what we have evolved in the US. Innovate and then use the profits of innovation to buy legislation that eliminates competition.
This sort of stands in contrast to reality, where the US has sustained insane and constant innovation for a vast stretch of time.
This sort of stands in contrast to reality, where the US has sustained insane and constant innovation for a vast stretch of time.
[deleted]
> I wonder why?
To learn.
Do we need a better reason to try something new?
To learn.
Do we need a better reason to try something new?
Nope. But I suspect it's beyond learning. The Chinese may understand nuclear power better than almost anyone else, France not withstanding. I could believe this is a strategic move, to diversify power input sources as well.
Look I am not knocking learning, but I don't think thats the key drive here.
Look I am not knocking learning, but I don't think thats the key drive here.
I believe this is mainly due to China's strong sense of crisis regarding energy supply. If it had as abundant fossil fuel resources as the United States and Russia, it likely wouldn't have invested so heavily in diversifying its energy sources. The development and support of new energy vehicles can also be largely attributed to this.
China has something like 35 years of coal reserves, based on current estimates and assuming mining holds flat.
Given the ~50% of their energy mix that's coal [0], that becomes a fix-it-ASAP problem for their economy.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?c...
Given the ~50% of their energy mix that's coal [0], that becomes a fix-it-ASAP problem for their economy.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?c...
Heavy dependence on coal has led to severe environmental pollution. As winter approaches and cold fronts sweep down from the north, increased heating needs drive up thermal power generation, releasing more pollutants into the air. During periods of stagnant weather with no wind or rain, smog settles over the sprawling plains, triggering both public health concerns and mounting pressure on the government to address the issue and explore alternative energy sources.
yeah I think that hypothesis has legs. China has been trying to diversify their energy portfolio for a long time now. They're also going full steam ahead on wind and solar and is the world leader in battery storage (lithium ion and other types too). Fossil fuel, other than coal, has always been a major weakness for China that can be choked off via the Straits of Malacca.
I wonder if powering their reactor using thorium from their rare earth minerals mining is significantly cheaper than using uranium. Thorium also have the advantage of a very low weapons proliferation risk so it might be easier for China to export thorium reactors. This may play into China's long term plan to develop the global south as an alternative market (and counterweight) to the West.
I wonder if powering their reactor using thorium from their rare earth minerals mining is significantly cheaper than using uranium. Thorium also have the advantage of a very low weapons proliferation risk so it might be easier for China to export thorium reactors. This may play into China's long term plan to develop the global south as an alternative market (and counterweight) to the West.
Straits of Malacca is a red herring. The strait is the shortest route from Persian Gulf to China. But there are other routes through Indonesia, or could take detour around Indonesia or even Australia. The US Navy can block anywhere.
Also, there are supertankers bigger than Malaccamax, the largest ships than can use the strait. The Chinamax and Capesize ships are bigger.
Also, there are supertankers bigger than Malaccamax, the largest ships than can use the strait. The Chinamax and Capesize ships are bigger.
"full steam ahead on wind and solar" the only two generation strategies that don't involve steam ;)
One day they might be able to sell ready made thorium reactors. That would be big business.
I mean learning for learnings sake is more surprising then learning for a purpose.
>its applicability to large scale power with lower proliferation risk is given
that would allow easier export of thorium power plant building thus dominating the nuclear power sector similarly to solar panels.
that would allow easier export of thorium power plant building thus dominating the nuclear power sector similarly to solar panels.
> Commence, maybe. Given their lead in pebble bed, I wonder why?
Pebble bed reactors are also not a great idea. We've just had this discussion on HN...
Pebble bed reactors are also not a great idea. We've just had this discussion on HN...
The reason the United States pretends like it doesn't have plenty of rare Earth metals, is because of the insane anti-nuke cult that causes you to have to discard thorium as if it was a dangerous waste.
Thorium is usually co-deposited with rare earths. So nobody in the United States or Canada can afford to mine or process rare earths because they can't afford to dispose of bananas. Or Rather thorium which has the same radioactivity as a banana.
Thorium powerplants, nuclear fusion powerplants, solid-state batteries, quantum computing, and TSMC producing chips in the US are news that should be considered speculative until they go into production. There has been plenty of coverage, but little real-world utility or impact from these technologies so far.
Cool! Hope it works well and convinces more people to try it (if it works out)
But at what cost?
Not sure if you mean financial cost, or possibly environmental / human losses - but since it's in the middle of a desert, I assume they're trying to minimize the risk?
It's a meme.
Just google "china but at what cost"
There are probably hundreds of articles with the title at this point
China is getting smarter - but at what cost? https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50658538
China's wind industrial policy "succeeded" – but at what cost? https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/chinas-wi...
China Invests in Environment – but at What Cost? https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2018-04-...
China is getting smarter - but at what cost? https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50658538
China's wind industrial policy "succeeded" – but at what cost? https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/chinas-wi...
China Invests in Environment – but at What Cost? https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2018-04-...
The sources you've listed don't seem to show any environmental damage. In fact, China has been leading among major nations in environmental protection efforts in recent years. For instance, the destruction of natural forests has been virtually halted, and China has been the most successful country in combating desertification through massive reforestation projects.
Ironically, some Western media outlets are now criticizing China for "having too many trees" and reducing desert areas across the globe.
What are you on...
I am not interested in the political slinging that both the west and china deploy large capital in.
I just think it is funny
I just think it is funny
Authoritarianism isn't cost for building this. The lacking need of progress in this field here is the answer.
Stubborn and rigid bureaucratic rules combined with unreasonably tought regulations are the reason why we are not able to innovate as fast as we could.
Stubborn and rigid bureaucratic rules combined with unreasonably tought regulations are the reason why we are not able to innovate as fast as we could.
Lack of environmental regulations or regulations that the party can simply ignore without judicial checks is surely useful also.
I don't understand why the West hesitates with nuclear power.
About one third of China's politburo, including Xi Jinping, have degrees in Engineering. The West's leadership is all attorneys or finance.
The US could probably use a few engineers, but on the other hand I think the CCP could use a few finance people.
Based on what, China is too successful as it stands? Maybe they need to handicap themselves to appear less threatening?
The contribution that the finance people in the US made was to - accurately - identify that if they moved all the investment overseas then the US wouldn't need to work as hard. They were correct. The result has been massive leaps and bounds in Asian prosperity and living standards. Which is good for the world, but probably not the sort of strategy that the US wanted to adopt. Typically countries are supposed to promote the interests of the people living inside the borders instead of build up competitors. I dunno, maybe it was intentional but it'd have been cleverer to invest more in the US.
There is a pretty good chance that China implodes because of the authoritarian and bureaucratic streak their government has. But the US's financiers are, if anything, one of the key ingredients helping it revert to the mean from an economically dominant position.
The contribution that the finance people in the US made was to - accurately - identify that if they moved all the investment overseas then the US wouldn't need to work as hard. They were correct. The result has been massive leaps and bounds in Asian prosperity and living standards. Which is good for the world, but probably not the sort of strategy that the US wanted to adopt. Typically countries are supposed to promote the interests of the people living inside the borders instead of build up competitors. I dunno, maybe it was intentional but it'd have been cleverer to invest more in the US.
There is a pretty good chance that China implodes because of the authoritarian and bureaucratic streak their government has. But the US's financiers are, if anything, one of the key ingredients helping it revert to the mean from an economically dominant position.
> but probably not the sort of strategy that the US wanted to adopt
only after having enjoyed the lowered cost goods and such. But there's a price to everything, always. And if you're not paying that price up front, it's gonna come to roost at some point.
> There is a pretty good chance that China implodes because of the authoritarian and bureaucratic streak their government has.
i dont think so. China's gov't has been stable enough for long enough, that the people it is governing over don't feel the need to overthrow them. And i don't see any trigger for this either - the average wealth and wellbeing of the chinese citizen has only grown better over the decades. Even now, where there's an economic slowdown, you don't have people starving in the streets.
It is merely wishful thinking that the west's media want to push, that there's a governance problem in china.
only after having enjoyed the lowered cost goods and such. But there's a price to everything, always. And if you're not paying that price up front, it's gonna come to roost at some point.
> There is a pretty good chance that China implodes because of the authoritarian and bureaucratic streak their government has.
i dont think so. China's gov't has been stable enough for long enough, that the people it is governing over don't feel the need to overthrow them. And i don't see any trigger for this either - the average wealth and wellbeing of the chinese citizen has only grown better over the decades. Even now, where there's an economic slowdown, you don't have people starving in the streets.
It is merely wishful thinking that the west's media want to push, that there's a governance problem in china.
Based on China constantly handicapping their capital markets with boneheaded decisions. Their stock market is a wreck sending a lot of their best companies abroad in search of capital.
That seems more like a case of "authoritarianism is bad" than "finance people are good".
It can happen in democracies too. I can think of a few specific ones off the top of my head.
Democracy isn't incompatible with authoritarianism. Absent strong checks and balances, they tend to be entirely too compatible.
> sending a lot of their best companies abroad in search of capital.
which is fine, because china's method is one where they (the CCP) retains ultimate control despite foreign financing - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/variable-interest-entit...
basically, this legal entity has not been 100% "legal" and undisputed in the chinese legal system - it's vague, and deliberately left so. It allows the CCP any reason to crackdown on any company's foreign ownership (by simply declaring this VIE structure illegal and void).
The CCP has two goals with this method (queue conspiracy music here). The first is to ensure state control all the time, even if the CCP isn't financially invested in said company. The second, and imho, a bit more insidious, is to prevent the local capital markets from developing too maturely.
The reason the CCP don't want the citizenry to have easy and low cost access to capital markets, is to prevent wealth from being built up by ordinary citizens in large numbers (like how it is in the west). Wealth is power, and the CCP don't want power to spread out to ordinary citizens, except as rising economic prosperity (ala, good jobs, cheap access to goods/services etc). It's the reason why they crushed the real estate property sector when they did. It is why stock markets are very difficult to invest in for ordinary citizens.
which is fine, because china's method is one where they (the CCP) retains ultimate control despite foreign financing - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/variable-interest-entit...
basically, this legal entity has not been 100% "legal" and undisputed in the chinese legal system - it's vague, and deliberately left so. It allows the CCP any reason to crackdown on any company's foreign ownership (by simply declaring this VIE structure illegal and void).
The CCP has two goals with this method (queue conspiracy music here). The first is to ensure state control all the time, even if the CCP isn't financially invested in said company. The second, and imho, a bit more insidious, is to prevent the local capital markets from developing too maturely.
The reason the CCP don't want the citizenry to have easy and low cost access to capital markets, is to prevent wealth from being built up by ordinary citizens in large numbers (like how it is in the west). Wealth is power, and the CCP don't want power to spread out to ordinary citizens, except as rising economic prosperity (ala, good jobs, cheap access to goods/services etc). It's the reason why they crushed the real estate property sector when they did. It is why stock markets are very difficult to invest in for ordinary citizens.
>CCP don't want the citizenry to have easy and low cost access to capital markets
It's more like like PRC is still a developing country with substantial amount of poor people and little social safety/welfare net. CCP doesn't want people, especially the poor, who mostly skew old, had/has absolutely retarded financial literacy except savings, to investment (gamble) their nest egg. Trading in the 2000s when stock market was bananas. Mass speculation / herd mentality / scams. Government had to intervene so folks didn't lose their shit with no fall back.
Stockmarket is easy to invest in for ordinary citizens, IMO that's why it's being controlled / profitability (and losses) mitigaged. Reality is if you have mostly retail (individual) investors vs institutional, and individuals = a billion superstious traders is recipe for market volatility, which is net bad. People think professional financiers are the answer, but IMO that's just goign to self select for financiers who knows how to play to the masses.
It's more like like PRC is still a developing country with substantial amount of poor people and little social safety/welfare net. CCP doesn't want people, especially the poor, who mostly skew old, had/has absolutely retarded financial literacy except savings, to investment (gamble) their nest egg. Trading in the 2000s when stock market was bananas. Mass speculation / herd mentality / scams. Government had to intervene so folks didn't lose their shit with no fall back.
Stockmarket is easy to invest in for ordinary citizens, IMO that's why it's being controlled / profitability (and losses) mitigaged. Reality is if you have mostly retail (individual) investors vs institutional, and individuals = a billion superstious traders is recipe for market volatility, which is net bad. People think professional financiers are the answer, but IMO that's just goign to self select for financiers who knows how to play to the masses.
> investment (gamble) their nest egg.
investment, done according to well known economic theories (such as market index investing), is not like gambling. People who do gamble (like wallstreetbets style) might lose, but i don't believe most people, if they're allowed a bit of education, will do that. The degenerate gamblers will always gamble anyway.
> Stockmarket is easy to invest in for ordinary citizens
try investing in foreign companies/indices - you will find that ordinary citizens cannot easily do it. They'd have to do it via a HK broker, or have sufficent capital to have a private banker. There's also a lot of capital flow restrictions (that i'm not too privy to, but it's there). Sure it might be easy to invest in the chinese shanghai index as a chinese citizen, but that's too concentrated and is akin to gambling.
investment, done according to well known economic theories (such as market index investing), is not like gambling. People who do gamble (like wallstreetbets style) might lose, but i don't believe most people, if they're allowed a bit of education, will do that. The degenerate gamblers will always gamble anyway.
> Stockmarket is easy to invest in for ordinary citizens
try investing in foreign companies/indices - you will find that ordinary citizens cannot easily do it. They'd have to do it via a HK broker, or have sufficent capital to have a private banker. There's also a lot of capital flow restrictions (that i'm not too privy to, but it's there). Sure it might be easy to invest in the chinese shanghai index as a chinese citizen, but that's too concentrated and is akin to gambling.
>if they're allowed a bit of education
PRC had like 3-10% tertiary education in 90s-00s. IMO the masses are not going to absorb a bit of education. They'll still speculate, bandwagon etc if there's money to be made. It's not so much degenerate gambling as degenerate heresay malinvestment not thinking they're gambling when they actually are. A shares in the 00s was basically a casino, but investors thought they could beat the house because latest XYZ tip. % of educated in society much higher now, but problem is uneducated still around and retiring, i.e. potentially even worse casino reopens.
>investing in foreign companies/indices
No this is definitely controlled out of capital flight concerns. Since the cohorot who would benefit from this are the top quantile, whose capita CCP definitely wants to control.
PRC had like 3-10% tertiary education in 90s-00s. IMO the masses are not going to absorb a bit of education. They'll still speculate, bandwagon etc if there's money to be made. It's not so much degenerate gambling as degenerate heresay malinvestment not thinking they're gambling when they actually are. A shares in the 00s was basically a casino, but investors thought they could beat the house because latest XYZ tip. % of educated in society much higher now, but problem is uneducated still around and retiring, i.e. potentially even worse casino reopens.
>investing in foreign companies/indices
No this is definitely controlled out of capital flight concerns. Since the cohorot who would benefit from this are the top quantile, whose capita CCP definitely wants to control.
> Typically countries are supposed to promote the interests of the people living inside the borders instead of build up competitors
Maybe the optimal solution isn’t always doing a Prisoner’s Dilemma betrayal of the competitor.
Maybe the optimal solution isn’t always doing a Prisoner’s Dilemma betrayal of the competitor.
Typically the leadership of countries does whatever benefits them personally, rather than (actually) care about the interests of the people living inside its borders.
The rare cases where that doesn’t happen, it’s usually because the people living inside the borders actually hold them accountable/align interests. Or people get really lucky.
The rare cases where that doesn’t happen, it’s usually because the people living inside the borders actually hold them accountable/align interests. Or people get really lucky.
In the case of the US, the latest president is a failed businessman who is more concerned about trans people, abortion, and immigrants than progress.
According to media I’m supposed to hate China but I don’t hear Xi Jinping spouting nonsense like that.
According to media I’m supposed to hate China but I don’t hear Xi Jinping spouting nonsense like that.
I guarantee you he's not that concerned about trans people, abortion or immigration. They are great ways to sow division though.
You can hate the Chinese system for how it limits human rights, cracks down harshly on dissent, and stifles many creative outlets. Hating China or the Chinese people, which are like anywhere, generally lovely people, is silly.
There's plenty of nonsense coming from the mouth of the Party, but it doesn't make the US news, because it's not aimed at the US. There's also a lot less news overall which discusses and critiques the Party and what its representatives say, for obvious reasons.
There's plenty of nonsense coming from the mouth of the Party, but it doesn't make the US news, because it's not aimed at the US. There's also a lot less news overall which discusses and critiques the Party and what its representatives say, for obvious reasons.
lol, abortion is perfectly legal in China, the government doesn't control women's bodies.
Certain policies are more set and less up to discussion after a period of experimentation. Political system in China is more geared towards not letting human or interest groups desires reflected in national policies. Instead, national policies reflect the common good and common sense. And political system helps to unify common sense, values, individual knowledge. There is healthy level of diversity, but also a necessary level of unity to prevent extreme polarization, left and right fighting.
For example, no prostitutions, human trafficking, surrogacy, so women from disadvantaged communities are not taken advantage of after decades of that happening in Qing and ROC era. Instead, they are given opportunity to have a proper education, such as in STEM. And they have the opportunity to work in 5G, AI, semiconductors, EVs, batteries, medicine, which interestingly, USA government doesn't want Chinese citizens to work on. U accuse China has no human rights, but China moved from the country with the worst women's rights to one amongst the highest amongst East Asian countries. In my view, women's societal standing in China is equal or higher than South Korea and Japan. And leaps better than India, the largest "democracy" and country closest to China's level 100 years ago.
No drugs, harsh on drug trade, production. So disadvantaged communities are not exploited by drug dealers. We will not let what is happening in the US with fentanyl crisis happen to us. U accuse China caused US"s fentanyl crisis because we make the drugs. Lol, so if we make the drug then why don't we have fentanyl crisis? Shouldn't be its much easier to sell and traffic it where it is produced? Drug issue is a demand problem, there is a demand in the US, no matter how much you squash the supply, people will find a way to make it. U need to end it at the demand side.
Climate policy is set now, no debate on some company can get lax air pollution policies to help their bottom line. Economic policy is free market, center right, but with basic social safety net in health care, pensions, poverty, high level of social safety net in education, security, crime levels.
We worked hard to lower the price of solar panels, so the world has an alternative energy source in age of global warming. Yet, u accuse us of evil intent to dominate and overcapacity and now expanding hydrocarbon production. So, is global warming not an issue anymore? Or was global warming a narrative used to attack China? The reason we worked hard on lower price of solar is in a perfect free market, solar has to compete with coal and natural gas. And it takes technology and innovation to reduce cost. Cost reduction is a good thing, Moorse law is also cost reduction, if we don't have cost reduction, we will still be using Pentium 3s. So, sorry a lot of solar companies went down, because they can't compete on technology, supply chain, and manufacturing. Ur competitor is not Chinese solar companies, ur competitor is cheap coal and gas. Unless ur solar industry is banking on government subsidies for the rest of their lives. But wait, I thought the west is against government subsidies.
U say Chinese government stifles many creative outlets. When Chinese people work on, dream and create 5G, tiktok, DJI, EVs, solar panels, batteries, semiconductors, AI, phone apps, games, USA is attempting to kill them all, taking away Chinese people's freedom, rights to survival, development and dream. So Chinese people can only do certain things approved by US government? The only thing we approved to do is to overthrow our own government? Or civil war in our country? Or have our country broken into many pieces? Everyone has the right to pursuit of happiness, not Chinese people according to USA.
And how interesting the West is stifling Chinese speech by saying their Chinese propaganda? Speech is "free" if it agrees with West narrative, it is propaganda when it does not.
I used to admire the USA, but not these days. When Chinese people are doing better, being empowered, USA 's response is to attack, oppress, sabotage Chinese people's livelihood. Instead of "it's nice to see good human progress", "we have trade and commerce disputes, but let's resolve that by making the pie bigger for everyone". Tesla and Apple can sell their products without government led market and non-market obstruction, let me know if I can buy a BYD or Huawei in the USA. And US import tariffs of Chinese goods is now much higher than the reverse.
USA accuse us stealing your jobs, no, your own companies shipped these jobs overseas, you should ask your own companies, not attacking some mom and dad working in factories to support their kids in another country. USA is already the richest country on Earth, your problem is most of your wealth is concentrated on top 1%, instead of distributing your wealth better, or help the people in need, you attack regular mom and dads' livelihoods in another country, making them not able bring food for their families. And most people cheer for this and think it is moral? Great values you got there.
Certain policies are more set and less up to discussion after a period of experimentation. Political system in China is more geared towards not letting human or interest groups desires reflected in national policies. Instead, national policies reflect the common good and common sense. And political system helps to unify common sense, values, individual knowledge. There is healthy level of diversity, but also a necessary level of unity to prevent extreme polarization, left and right fighting.
For example, no prostitutions, human trafficking, surrogacy, so women from disadvantaged communities are not taken advantage of after decades of that happening in Qing and ROC era. Instead, they are given opportunity to have a proper education, such as in STEM. And they have the opportunity to work in 5G, AI, semiconductors, EVs, batteries, medicine, which interestingly, USA government doesn't want Chinese citizens to work on. U accuse China has no human rights, but China moved from the country with the worst women's rights to one amongst the highest amongst East Asian countries. In my view, women's societal standing in China is equal or higher than South Korea and Japan. And leaps better than India, the largest "democracy" and country closest to China's level 100 years ago.
No drugs, harsh on drug trade, production. So disadvantaged communities are not exploited by drug dealers. We will not let what is happening in the US with fentanyl crisis happen to us. U accuse China caused US"s fentanyl crisis because we make the drugs. Lol, so if we make the drug then why don't we have fentanyl crisis? Shouldn't be its much easier to sell and traffic it where it is produced? Drug issue is a demand problem, there is a demand in the US, no matter how much you squash the supply, people will find a way to make it. U need to end it at the demand side.
Climate policy is set now, no debate on some company can get lax air pollution policies to help their bottom line. Economic policy is free market, center right, but with basic social safety net in health care, pensions, poverty, high level of social safety net in education, security, crime levels.
We worked hard to lower the price of solar panels, so the world has an alternative energy source in age of global warming. Yet, u accuse us of evil intent to dominate and overcapacity and now expanding hydrocarbon production. So, is global warming not an issue anymore? Or was global warming a narrative used to attack China? The reason we worked hard on lower price of solar is in a perfect free market, solar has to compete with coal and natural gas. And it takes technology and innovation to reduce cost. Cost reduction is a good thing, Moorse law is also cost reduction, if we don't have cost reduction, we will still be using Pentium 3s. So, sorry a lot of solar companies went down, because they can't compete on technology, supply chain, and manufacturing. Ur competitor is not Chinese solar companies, ur competitor is cheap coal and gas. Unless ur solar industry is banking on government subsidies for the rest of their lives. But wait, I thought the west is against government subsidies.
U say Chinese government stifles many creative outlets. When Chinese people work on, dream and create 5G, tiktok, DJI, EVs, solar panels, batteries, semiconductors, AI, phone apps, games, USA is attempting to kill them all, taking away Chinese people's freedom, rights to survival, development and dream. So Chinese people can only do certain things approved by US government? The only thing we approved to do is to overthrow our own government? Or civil war in our country? Or have our country broken into many pieces? Everyone has the right to pursuit of happiness, not Chinese people according to USA.
And how interesting the West is stifling Chinese speech by saying their Chinese propaganda? Speech is "free" if it agrees with West narrative, it is propaganda when it does not.
I used to admire the USA, but not these days. When Chinese people are doing better, being empowered, USA 's response is to attack, oppress, sabotage Chinese people's livelihood. Instead of "it's nice to see good human progress", "we have trade and commerce disputes, but let's resolve that by making the pie bigger for everyone". Tesla and Apple can sell their products without government led market and non-market obstruction, let me know if I can buy a BYD or Huawei in the USA. And US import tariffs of Chinese goods is now much higher than the reverse.
USA accuse us stealing your jobs, no, your own companies shipped these jobs overseas, you should ask your own companies, not attacking some mom and dad working in factories to support their kids in another country. USA is already the richest country on Earth, your problem is most of your wealth is concentrated on top 1%, instead of distributing your wealth better, or help the people in need, you attack regular mom and dads' livelihoods in another country, making them not able bring food for their families. And most people cheer for this and think it is moral? Great values you got there.
Gedhun Choekyi Nyima (born 25 April 1989) is the 11th Panchen Lama belonging to the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism, as recognized and announced by the 14th Dalai Lama on 14 May 1995. Three days later on 17 May,
the six-year-old Panchen Lama was kidnapped and forcibly disappeared by the Chinese government,
after the State Council of the People's Republic of China failed in its efforts to install a substitute.
Since his kidnapping, the whereabouts of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima have been unknown. Chinese officials state that his whereabouts are kept undisclosed to protect him. Human rights organizations termed him the "youngest political prisoner in the world". No foreign party has been allowed to visit him.
As of 2024, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima has not been seen by any independent observer since his disappearance in 1995.
the six-year-old Panchen Lama was kidnapped and forcibly disappeared by the Chinese government,
after the State Council of the People's Republic of China failed in its efforts to install a substitute.
Since his kidnapping, the whereabouts of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima have been unknown. Chinese officials state that his whereabouts are kept undisclosed to protect him. Human rights organizations termed him the "youngest political prisoner in the world". No foreign party has been allowed to visit him.
As of 2024, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima has not been seen by any independent observer since his disappearance in 1995.
> For example, no prostitutions
Maybe I'm misreading, what do you mean by this? China has plenty of prostitution in case that's what you meant.
> the government doesn't control women's bodies.
Peng Shuai might have something to say about that. Or she would, if doing so wouldn't have cost her career.
Maybe I'm misreading, what do you mean by this? China has plenty of prostitution in case that's what you meant.
> the government doesn't control women's bodies.
Peng Shuai might have something to say about that. Or she would, if doing so wouldn't have cost her career.
It's not rare across East Asia that prostitution is outright illegal without exceptions, except its enforcement is selectively applied based on never spoken but established criteria. Same for pornography.
I think it's also probably true that Chinese government don't control specifically women's bodies. Chinese spoken languages always used singular they by default.
I think it's also probably true that Chinese government don't control specifically women's bodies. Chinese spoken languages always used singular they by default.
Why does China government prop housing bubble instead of letting it deflate?
> the government doesn't control women's bodies.
孩政策
孩政策
Trump is not a great business man, but one thing they are good at is playing the media. I assure you Trump, the person, couldn’t care less about trans people, for better or worse. The fact that you’re even talking about trans at all, as opposed to the fact that they’re a felon, proves it all.
You can use “he” as a pronoun for Trump, he won’t be offended and your writing will be clearer.
The entire democratic party is more concerned about trans people, abortion, and immigrants than progress.
Women’s rights, gay and trans rights and human rights were hard fought for. Defending them is progress.
Apart from human rights, it's up to those individual groups to defend them, not to society as a whole. That's why you've got Trump, because other parts of society are pissed off with DEI policies.
Equality is ensured by the society as a whole not just the marginalized minority who already have limited rights and voice.
Sounds good except the direction in which that last one has been pushed now puts it in direct conflict with the first two. So it's no longer progress.
There is nothing incompatible about womens rightsn and trans rights lmao
Claiming a political party cares too much about human rights is an interesting complaint...
Is this why China is such a great and technically advanced country?
It is but it has its risks/downsides. Engineers want to build and architecture everything which is why China has shit ton of rail, metros, bridges, etc... but also they don't want to hear anything about costs/ROI/Profitability/PMF or any of that annoying economic speak :)
Law is a weird one and maybe I am wrong but I think law leadership is the worst of all. They have no understanding of neither engineering or economics.
Law is a weird one and maybe I am wrong but I think law leadership is the worst of all. They have no understanding of neither engineering or economics.
Engineers have no trouble crafting a solution that fits within a given budget.
The real problem, with all of it, is surplus. What happens to the resources you didn't actually have to spend, once an efficient solution has been engineered?
If you let engineers decide, they spend it on over-engineering. If you can do it for ten million but there is a billion dollars in the budget, you can also do it for a billion dollars and then square away lots of implausible edge cases and improve materials efficiency by a sliver etc. But this is wasteful because those things have diminishing returns or a poor cost/benefit ratio and you ended up spending a hundred times more than was necessary for a couple of percent improvement in the result.
If you let politicians decide, they spend it on cronies. This is wasteful, because obviously.
What you have do is to figure out how to make the surplus end up back in the hands of the taxpayer without letting any of these resource parasites get their hands on it.
The real problem, with all of it, is surplus. What happens to the resources you didn't actually have to spend, once an efficient solution has been engineered?
If you let engineers decide, they spend it on over-engineering. If you can do it for ten million but there is a billion dollars in the budget, you can also do it for a billion dollars and then square away lots of implausible edge cases and improve materials efficiency by a sliver etc. But this is wasteful because those things have diminishing returns or a poor cost/benefit ratio and you ended up spending a hundred times more than was necessary for a couple of percent improvement in the result.
If you let politicians decide, they spend it on cronies. This is wasteful, because obviously.
What you have do is to figure out how to make the surplus end up back in the hands of the taxpayer without letting any of these resource parasites get their hands on it.
It is the mix. Not the pure … obviously when nearly all leaders are engineers you have a problem. But if some are not, and others learn. Even for a lawyer leader group, they can learn or have a whole institution that is effectveky independent from them.
It is the mix. And whether you listen and learn. In spite of your ideology or policies. Btw is trump a lawyer …
It is the mix. And whether you listen and learn. In spite of your ideology or policies. Btw is trump a lawyer …
Everything needs balance at the end.
[deleted]
Two reasons - cost and safety worries as in Chernobyl/Fukushima/waste etc.
The safety worries lead to excessive regulation and higher costs.
Here's how it's going in the UK with Hinkley C, our first new reactor for 30 years - "EDF now estimates that the cost could hit £46bn" for one reactor. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68073279
Also while nuclear costs rise, renewables plummet https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=6053
From World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2024:
>Solar and wind power capacities alone grew by 73% and 51%, respectively, resulting in 460 gigawatts (GW) of combined new capacity versus the 1 GW decline in nuclear.
>In China, a major energy market, over 200 GW of solar capacity was added compared to 1 GW of additional nuclear capacity.
The safety worries lead to excessive regulation and higher costs.
Here's how it's going in the UK with Hinkley C, our first new reactor for 30 years - "EDF now estimates that the cost could hit £46bn" for one reactor. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68073279
Also while nuclear costs rise, renewables plummet https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=6053
From World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2024:
>Solar and wind power capacities alone grew by 73% and 51%, respectively, resulting in 460 gigawatts (GW) of combined new capacity versus the 1 GW decline in nuclear.
>In China, a major energy market, over 200 GW of solar capacity was added compared to 1 GW of additional nuclear capacity.
*just a minor correction: costs because of complete governmental, regulatory, and industrial capture by the fossil fuel industry, who owns all the politicians and massive swaths of the industrial supply chain.
Fixed it for you.
There is no way the most abundant and powerful energy source available to human kind actually costs this much. By the standards of physics, it is by far the cheapest -- cheapening energy is simply not an objective the energy barons would allow without a war with them.
The west already built nuclear, but that era is mostly over. Two thirds of the world’s nuclear power capacity is in the west, with the USA far ahead of any country (with double the nuclear output of China).
Even if all of the reactors being built around the world today are completed, overall nuclear power use will decline, as plants from the enormous construction boom of the 1970s-1980s reach the end of their life and are not replaced.
Even if all of the reactors being built around the world today are completed, overall nuclear power use will decline, as plants from the enormous construction boom of the 1970s-1980s reach the end of their life and are not replaced.
Its not cost effective. The US's latest nuclear plant took 15 years to build and cost $35 billion. The 15 years part alone is enough reason to focus on other energy sources
In China it takes 5-7 years. What would we have to give up to be able to do that?
No need to give up anything, except a poorly designed regulatory environment :
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power...
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power...
Now for the real reason, voters dont want to.
They don't want to what? Don't want to give up poorly designed regulations? Or do not want nuclear power?
The latter is largely due to the anti nuclear movement, as sponsored by the petroleum industry. This will go down in history as one of the biggest self-owns in trying to protect the environment.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...
The latter is largely due to the anti nuclear movement, as sponsored by the petroleum industry. This will go down in history as one of the biggest self-owns in trying to protect the environment.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...
Don’t want to be forced to pay a premium for the most expensive mainstream form of power generation.
And we're back to the beginning. One of the major costs of current reactors is regulatory burden. One of the reasons we don't see improvements in costs is it is extremely hard to release changes or new designs.
Dont want to be scared of a nuclear meltdown
We should put a stop to hydro electric as well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
Dont let the voters know about this or we will
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/nuclear-dead-end-i...
It is just not economically feasible. Money makes the world go 'round and that's often a good thing. I wish you luck convincing a bank to give you a loan for a nuclear plant. They know the math.
It is just not economically feasible. Money makes the world go 'round and that's often a good thing. I wish you luck convincing a bank to give you a loan for a nuclear plant. They know the math.
The economics of nuclear power is dominated by a poorly designed regulatory environment (which can be changed if regulators are suitablely motivated).
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power...
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power...
I dispute that. I'm as pro-nuclear as one can be, but I don't think the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) is doing a bad job, or that the regulations are unreasonable. In the end, a lot of the regulations came as a response to incidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, and others less well known. One way or another, nuclear reactors are extremely complex machines, with numerous failure modes. As various failure modes were learned (either the soft or the hard way), the regulations were updated. For example, after Fukushima, the NRC asked all the nuclear power plants in the US to undergo changes to make them more resilient to earthquakes.
This does not mean the economics of nuclear power is an unsolvable problem. It is an engineering problem, and it is very solvable. But it can't be solved if one does not try. No problem in this world can be solved if everyone is convinced it's unsolvable and nobody is willing to try to solve it.
Who is then supposed to solve this problem. It's an extremely capital intensive problem. A guy like Musk could do it, but Musk himself is uninterested in nuclear power (he likes to tell the fairly lame joke that we have a giant fusion reactor in the sky). Bill Gates has invested a lot of his money into nuclear power R&D, and this is good. But what Gates did not invest is his drive. Musk showed us that an extremely driven and competent manager can lower production costs by factors of 10 or 50. But just pouring money at a problem does not solve it, see Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin.
Fortunately, governments have much deeper pockets than even Gates, Bezos or Musk. China is a leader in this area, and Russia is very advanced too. It looks like the US Government finally got the message, so there is a pretty good chance to see real progress on this front in the next 10 years.
This does not mean the economics of nuclear power is an unsolvable problem. It is an engineering problem, and it is very solvable. But it can't be solved if one does not try. No problem in this world can be solved if everyone is convinced it's unsolvable and nobody is willing to try to solve it.
Who is then supposed to solve this problem. It's an extremely capital intensive problem. A guy like Musk could do it, but Musk himself is uninterested in nuclear power (he likes to tell the fairly lame joke that we have a giant fusion reactor in the sky). Bill Gates has invested a lot of his money into nuclear power R&D, and this is good. But what Gates did not invest is his drive. Musk showed us that an extremely driven and competent manager can lower production costs by factors of 10 or 50. But just pouring money at a problem does not solve it, see Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin.
Fortunately, governments have much deeper pockets than even Gates, Bezos or Musk. China is a leader in this area, and Russia is very advanced too. It looks like the US Government finally got the message, so there is a pretty good chance to see real progress on this front in the next 10 years.
> ...I don't think the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) is doing a bad job...
"He has a master's from Yale Divinity School and Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Religious Studies from Valparaiso University."
Christopher Hanson, current chair of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_T._Hanson
He's one of the better ones as he isn't actively trying to block new reactors going up. There are some gems on the other Chairperson wiki pages like "called for a global ban on nuclear power" (Gregory Jaczko if you want to look it up).
"He has a master's from Yale Divinity School and Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Religious Studies from Valparaiso University."
Christopher Hanson, current chair of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_T._Hanson
He's one of the better ones as he isn't actively trying to block new reactors going up. There are some gems on the other Chairperson wiki pages like "called for a global ban on nuclear power" (Gregory Jaczko if you want to look it up).
Which part of the linked article do you dispute?
I was replying to the parent comment: "The economics of nuclear power is dominated by a poorly designed regulatory environment".
That is understood. The comment had a well written article that goes into detail about how the poorly designed regulations more than double the costs of building nuclear. Just saying you dispute something, without providing any arguments, or rebuttals is not very convincing.
I provided arguments: a lot of the regulations came in response to new failure rates discovered when operating nuclear reactors, many times via an accident like Fukushima.
But since you are asking, here's a typical statement from the linked article:
Now consider this: the NRC approved the NuScale reactor design [1]. Yet, NuScale never built a demonstration reactor, the entire approval was based on computer models. A regulatory body hell-bent to stymie new reactors would not have done that. This approval, in my mind, shows that the NRC is quite reasonable.
And by the way, I did spend some time going over some of the approval documents. I remember a dissension paper that I found, where one NRC inspector expressed dissatisfaction with some corner case concerning borated water. I can't find it now, but I found some paragraphs in one of the final documents, where the NRC describes the situation ([2] page 48):
NuScale spent a lot of money and man-hours (if I remember correctly $0.5 BN and 1.5 million man-hours) in order to secure the approval. But reading the approval documents on the NRC website, you get the idea that all the work was actually needed. Reactors are just very complex machines with many failure modes.
[1] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/licensing-acti...
[2] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2020/ML20205L408.pdf
But since you are asking, here's a typical statement from the linked article:
> Nuclear grade components don’t necessarily have higher performance requirements than conventional components - the cost instead mostly comes from the documentation and testing to ensure they’ll meet their performance requirements.
Now consider this: the NRC approved the NuScale reactor design [1]. Yet, NuScale never built a demonstration reactor, the entire approval was based on computer models. A regulatory body hell-bent to stymie new reactors would not have done that. This approval, in my mind, shows that the NRC is quite reasonable.
And by the way, I did spend some time going over some of the approval documents. I remember a dissension paper that I found, where one NRC inspector expressed dissatisfaction with some corner case concerning borated water. I can't find it now, but I found some paragraphs in one of the final documents, where the NRC describes the situation ([2] page 48):
> The applicant also analyzed postulated scenarios involving extended DHRS operation with the secondary side water level in the steam generator tubes above the primary side water level in the reactor vessel downcomer, hereafter referred to as the boiling/condensing heat transfer mode. In this scenario, the boiling of borated primary coolant in the reactor core generates steam, which subsequently condenses on the section of the steam generator tubes that is filled with secondary coolant and above the downcomer water level. The resulting formation of condensate, if left unmitigated, would tend to dilute the boron concentration of the coolant in the downcomer.
NuScale spent a lot of money and man-hours (if I remember correctly $0.5 BN and 1.5 million man-hours) in order to secure the approval. But reading the approval documents on the NRC website, you get the idea that all the work was actually needed. Reactors are just very complex machines with many failure modes.
[1] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/licensing-acti...
[2] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2020/ML20205L408.pdf
Technology can make things cheaper, often a tiny fraction of the previous unit cost. We have plenty of examples of this; why wouldn't it also be true for nuclear power?
Think about the opposite of your question. If it could it already would have, so why hasn’t it? It must not be possible. It doesn’t scale like a cpu or a website. You are still hiring extremely skilled welders, complying with regulations so you don’t Chernobyl half the country, figuring out where to put the waste that is radioactive for longer than modern humans have existed.
There are all sorts of technical solutions to those problems already on the drawing board. Even transuranic waste can be "burned" with neutrons leaving only the fission products (half-life of say 30 years, so 300 years is a 1000x reduction; 600 years is a million times reduction, basically harmless at that point). Molten salt reactors could in theory solve both problems at once at low cost. If we can build them.
I just think there's so much promise it's worth putting some time into it. Definitely a more likely payoff than fusion research.
I just think there's so much promise it's worth putting some time into it. Definitely a more likely payoff than fusion research.
I honestly have no idea either. I'm not deep into this topic at all, but I do remember there being some contracts with coal-based energy companies. They definitely have some agreement regarding nuclear power.
deeply irrational fear
Eh. Just like the first reactor, this is going to be a toy for scientists.
Thorium reactors are a dead end. Just keep building regular PWRs, operating on regular fuel (maaaaaybe MOX fuel). That's it.
It's a proven, scalable method.
Thorium reactors are a dead end. Just keep building regular PWRs, operating on regular fuel (maaaaaybe MOX fuel). That's it.
It's a proven, scalable method.
I‘m not in favor of nuclear at all. But I do not like the term ‚are a dead end‘. If everybody would do that we would probably not have blue led‘s and that would’ve hindered the growth of many modern computing devices.
The problem is that the amount of effort we can spend on nuclear energy is finite. And we _need_ it.
We have a good, well-known solution that has been in wide use for 60 years. So we just need to build it.
We have a good, well-known solution that has been in wide use for 60 years. So we just need to build it.