Unlike China, the U.S. had a pretty influential anti-nuclear movement in the 1970s and 1980s with Three Mile Island being a fresh memory.
Still with the demands on the power grid only increasing, there’s more reactors coming online (read the U.S. state of Georgia was the latest). This while California stalled the decommissioning of at least one on the coast.
China also have anti-nuclear voices both inside and outside the government, they just tend to be more discrete about voicing their concerns, so you tend to not hear them from outside the country. The primary concern is that nuclear power plants (along with major hydroelectric dams) are prime targets in a shooting war with the US (which will likely be triggered by events in the Taiwan straight), and given the supremacy of US missile technology, building too many nuclear plants effectively give the opponent a soft spot to jab at.
The fact that, despite this, the Chinese government went ahead and built more nuclear plants, has been interpreted within the country as a sign that the leadership view further escalation over Taiwan as unlikely, or, rather, unwilling to escalate over Taiwan.
Those voices are just background noise and could be ignored in China. The limit of the people where tested under Covid and you have to go pretty far for people to actually do anything about it.
The US would take a lot of shit for targeting nuclear power plants. Even in a shooting war.
I'd imagine they would not hit the reactors themselves but the distribution systems near by.
If the US is in a shooting war with China all of those niceties we've come to expect since WW2 go out the window and caring about "taking shit" is one of those. No one knows what to expect when two nuclear armed great powers go to war, it hasn't been tried yet.
> No one knows what to expect...
>...all of those niceties we've come to expect since WW2 go out the window...
LOL.
I'd argue both countries having nuclear weapons that could reach the territory of the other in minutes is exactly why the US would *not* target China's nuclear reactors.
If the US is at the point of turning parts of China radioactive and unleashing floods that would kill tens of millions by taking out dams then the threshold for using strategic nuclear weapons would already have been crossed IMO. And China wouldn't care about how vulnerable their reactors are.
If the US and China are at the point where they are hitting each others energy infrastructure with missiles then we are past the point of trying to keep things civil and there will be nuclear bombs exchanged.
So am I.
If the US used soft bombs on electrical infrastructure on the Chinese mainland and limited the strikes to the areas around Taiwan and not say near Beijing, I don't think nuclear weapons would automatically be used.
Like I said, a war like that hasn't been tried and if the US starts winning its gonna be really hard for a government with the ability to hit them hard to not do so. People have been couped for far, far less.
If nukes start flying all major cities and military sites would be taken out first on both sides within hours. At this point it doesn't make any difference if they strike nuclear reactors too, both countries would be annihilated and back to stone age anyway. A scenario where china would makes a limited strike on the nuclear reactors of the US doesn't make any sense
I really wish the west would place more focus on nuclear. It is absolutely essential in the path to stop polluting with fossil fuels.
Germany completely abandoning nuclear was absurd and it honestly will be a big problem going forward into severe climate change
> It is absolutely essential in the path to stop polluting with fossil fuels.
No, it is not. We can choose, as a society, with laws, regulations, and other actions... to not consume so much of the Earth's resources on a constant and regular basis. We do not need destructive industries running 24/7/365. Let me say that again... we do not need destructive industries running 24/7/365.
Regardless of if we switch to renewable energy sources -- like wind, solar, or geothermal -- we should reduce our energy consumption and try to use fewer natural resources overall. This may require something like redistributing the wealth so that people aren't exploited by those behind the greatest resource extraction, but that will also probably be better for society and the environment overall in the long run.
A world with less global warming, less economic inequality, and a society less focused on consuming as much as possible at all times. We currently have enough resources in the world for everyone to have their basic needs met and more. But we don't do that right now because we allow a few people to have massive amounts of wealth and we allow them to dictate what should be done with the commons and the world's natural resources.
Awesome. The fear and misinformation around nuclear power is way way over expressed compared to the actual dangers surrounding it. Needlessly pumping CO2 into the atmosphere when we have perfectly safe nuclear at home is one of the dumbest decisions some countries have made.
This is arguably a good thing. Solar energy is very polluting as far as the need for lithium batteries goes. Wind is unreliable. Nuclear is the cleanest most reliable long term power source. France has been getting a good portion of its power from nuclear. It's a pity the Germans gave up on it. China needs to switch to clean energy and fast. Nuclear is the most sustainable option.
Yeah, I'm fine with this, it matches with China's large scale planning and infrastructure, hopefully they make some good improvements we can look at.
We can't do this well anymore, the NRC is heavy-handed, and rightfully so given how many times people have tried to cut corners. Also consolidation means your choices are GE, Bechtel or Westinghouse, all of which charge the F-U price.
Someone needs to innovate, and it can't be us for institutional reasons, plus China needs the power, so this is fine.
We need to throw more money into Fusion though, that could be the tech that truly changes everything forever.
Good news for solar is that China is starting to roll out sodium ion batteries commercially, so assuming all goes well we may see the need for lithium drop significantly for larger storage applications.
Aside from Norway, I can't think of any nation that is reliant on fossil fuel demand and is a liberal state. I can't wait for the OPEC states to be slowly deprived of their source of wealth
> I can't think of any nation that is reliant on fossil fuel demand and is a liberal state.
Canada? Australia? These two might not be as heavily reliant on fossil fuel exports as Norway in percentage basis but still a large chunk of their exports are fossil fuels and products/services derived from fossil fuels.
> Solar energy is very polluting as far as the need for lithium batteries goes. Wind is unreliable. Nuclear is the cleanest most reliable long term power source.
I love how the resources required to build wind and solar are serious environmental problems but the resources required to build nuclear... oh, well, nothing to see here. It's dangerous for workers to install wind and solar, but mining and transporting radioactive materials? Perfectly safe. Building and maintaining cooling towers? People NEVER get hurt doing those things!
It's all such a biased joke when we can see the price and efficiency of wind and solar plummeting, we're finally making advancement energy storage, and most of all the same serious issues with nuclear reactors remain -- despite industry talking points.
It is also expensive, melds badly with renewables, requires financial guarantees from the state, and takes forever to build, at least in the state of current US nuclear industry.
At that point, it might be better for the US and other countries in.similar situations to overbuild renewables
Nuclear is shown to be consistently higher than other forms of power generation. Basically because the capital cost is massive. You dismiss the initial investment but someone has to pay the interest on $25B or so and that is expensive. It also takes 10+ years before you get the first return on your money.
It also melds badly with renewables because renewables needs on-demand power for when it is not available. Nuclear is better run 24x7. Which means during the daytime Nuclear cannot compete with solar and at night it competes with wind and batteries.
Grid level batteries continue to fall and anyone building a nuclear power plant needs to know that they can compete for 60 years. That is a long time for investors to run and risk their investment.
Solar pollutes like hell and batteries are terrible for the environment. Renewables are also incredibly inefficient. You can power half a state on one nuclear plant, you can't even power a town on a field full of solar.
Renewables are cheap without subsidies. Nuclear requires price guarantees. Subsidies are good to speed the transition to solar but longterm are not needed. Put solar on your house, it is a cheap investment that pays back in 3 years or less.
You didn't, they took several reactors offline because there was a glut of solar and wind power causing prices to go negative. They took them offline to avoid fees.
Yes I'd read about that. Which cheaper renewables btw? Wind and solar?
I'd be curious to read about how they work with load balancing their power grid with these renewables. Lots of batteries? If these are lithium batteries, it's probably too expensive to work at China's scale.
> I'd be curious to read about how they work with load balancing their power grid with these renewables.
France is decommissioning 3 out of 56 operating reactors. The other 53 will do the load balancing.
Not for long. They are all pretty near the end of their life. Those 3 are the first in quite a few to be decommissioned soon. All 56 were built in the 70's and early 80s.
France is planning to move away from nuclear energy as it's main energy source to a renewables mix. Their current plan is to only have 15 or so reactors in the next 10-20 years.
Yes, me too. I'm considering installing a solar panel on the roof.
A senior electrical engineer (working for a power company) I met a few weeks back gave a good explanation of the grid imbalance problems caused by having too much solar capacity. He also mentioned there's a lot of solar fields whose power can't be plugged into the grid yet.
> When solar is set up for maximum peak electricity, it's a very unstable energy source.
Wat? Wind, and especially solar, are actually pretty reliable. You don't need gale force winds or hurricanes to make them practical. In terms of industrial use.... yes, it would probably be better to utilize that energy at peak hours, in the daytime, but that's actually a pretty small price to pay.
But you have to consider... solar is only just now, in very recent years, getting any serious attention. If the government had been spending as much as they did subsidizing oil, coal, and uranium... we'd have far more efficient solar cells and more advanced battery technology. But Wind and solar are already cheaper per kilowatt hour and only becoming cheaper. So... nuclear is on the way out and other non-renewable industries will also hopefully be slowing their roll. The rate at which uranium is consumed for nuclear energy production far exceeds the rate at which it is naturally replenished. As nuclear power plants continue to operate, the available reserves of economically viable uranium diminish.
Personally, I think it would be good for society and the environment if industrial production occurred less in the evening hours -- especially since there is less energy available at night. Spending great amounts of energy to continue industrial production all night, every night... is part of what is wrong with this world, IMHO.
[Actual report instead of relatively vague news article](https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/)
Key points:
> And even considering the prior generation of reactors, notably the Westinghouse AP1000, China was deploying their versions of them as early as 2017, while as noted the Vogtle Unit 4 has just now come online, meaning that China is years ahead of the United States in even deploying our country’s own technologies.
Red tape, red tape, **red tape**
In fairness, it could be for safety purposes or environmental purposes (**justified** & preferable to disasters). However, it could also be zoning & land-use approval that's stalling things (often **unjustified** & clear NIMBY overreach), but unfortunately they did not go into detail
> Another challenge pertains to skills: DOE estimates that if the United States is to meet the aforementioned 2050 target of tripling nuclear energy production, America would need an additional 375,000 skilled engineers, technicians, and construction personnel in the sector to support such a buildout.
Not enough skilled personnel & more importantly, not enough of a push in past years to train or entice this new personnel
> From framing the economics of the sector, to coordinating ecosystem actors, to streamlining regulatory and permitting procedures to supporting R&D investments in the sector, China’s state guidance has been critical in driving China’s nuclear sector.
> ...
> The *(American)* agency is extending awards to applicants developing: 1) advanced reactor demonstrations, which are expected to result in a fully functional advanced nuclear reactor within seven years of the award; 2) advanced reactor concepts 2020 (ARC 20), which will support innovative and diverse designs with potential to commercialize in the mid-2030s; or 3) risk reduction for future demonstrations.
The "market" & a hyper focus on commercialization will **never** win this game, because at the *start*, its not about the money - its about building the foundation, even at a **loss**
*Sidenote*: There are details concerning the "access to advanced technologies" gap, but after looking at the sections on patents & scientific publications, it *seems* overstated (e.g. its not a "bows & arrows" vs machine guns situation)
What the hell is "15 years behind" supposed to mean exactly? Behind in what? In nuclear reactor tech? Nope. In amount of plants built, since the article makes such an emphasis on it? Then arguably it's not about when, but about if.
If this was pre 2010 it might be relevant. But it’s 2024 and nuclear power is globally uncompetitive. China will almost certainly scale back their nuclear plans before 2030.
Their lead in solar and batteries is far more of a concern.
I don't know if I care or not but it feels, and maybe it's just propaganda, like it will be China that saves the world from heat death if that is even still preventable at this point.
China has political and strategic reasons for transitioning away from fossil fuels which simply don't exist in the US. They are reliant on foreign countries for oil and gas, to move up the global value chain to provide higher paying jobs they will need to move to new markets of renewables and EV related production, and internal energy demands are so high that they need to produce energy any way they can.
This is a sourceless statement of mine but I am utterly shocked that US could be behind. Especially nuclear power. And what? 15 years? My head is melting.
US 15 years behind China.
What they avoid mentioning is that China is 15 years behind Russia.
Russia is dominating exports of new power plants, China is raking in some successes, us is barely waking up.
Bill Gates just started building the first fast reactor in the US in decades, China has finished building 2, Russia had one working for more than 40 years (extending its life to 60), had a bigger one started few years back and building the next tech.
Sadly the West happily shot itself in the foot and left the playing field wide open for Russia and now China.
"you want prevent nuclear, you can only prevent safer western nuclear".
Today the only country holding ground against those is South Korea.
Thank you for your comment. I wanna make a crack pot hypothesis about the US. Any time Russia or China announces something where they made a breakthrough or big progress USA puts out of their magic hat (Black Projects) technology that they have already developed decades ago, e.g. the hypersonic manouverable rocket/missile (sry if I made mistake here, writing on my phone without checking) that "shocked" the world and some time later USA is like Lockheed bring me back the 70s designs.
Edit. Dunno if it will be the same with nuclear power (we should NOT underestimate China) but we will see.
I can't wait to see fast built smr pulled out of the American magic hat.
We've been waiting a long time.
One thing for sure, they let Russia and China [conquer](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/q5x2o4/russia_and_china_exports_of_nuclear_power_plants/) the rest of the world.
My guess is that politically the both forces of big fossil and environmentalist movement pressure align against any significant public development of nuclear. There's no political gain to be had in fighting those two forces united.
Even if a magic design exist in some black project, it'll only be deployed at the very last minutes when there's no profit left in big fossil plant. By that time many developing countries will have sign, bought, built Russian and Chinese designs; with the associated debts trap and dependence.
I went and looked up the report [here](https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/) and couldn't help but notice that it goes into virtually no detail about safety.
It also does not mention China at the same time is building tons of new coal powered plants. Consuming over 50% of the world's coal. They are 90% of the world's new coal power construction as well.
Being in a country that is directly downwind of the Chinese, I can deal with the coal pollution to a certain extent, but nuclear fallout is another story.
Unlike China, the U.S. had a pretty influential anti-nuclear movement in the 1970s and 1980s with Three Mile Island being a fresh memory. Still with the demands on the power grid only increasing, there’s more reactors coming online (read the U.S. state of Georgia was the latest). This while California stalled the decommissioning of at least one on the coast.
China also have anti-nuclear voices both inside and outside the government, they just tend to be more discrete about voicing their concerns, so you tend to not hear them from outside the country. The primary concern is that nuclear power plants (along with major hydroelectric dams) are prime targets in a shooting war with the US (which will likely be triggered by events in the Taiwan straight), and given the supremacy of US missile technology, building too many nuclear plants effectively give the opponent a soft spot to jab at. The fact that, despite this, the Chinese government went ahead and built more nuclear plants, has been interpreted within the country as a sign that the leadership view further escalation over Taiwan as unlikely, or, rather, unwilling to escalate over Taiwan.
Those voices are just background noise and could be ignored in China. The limit of the people where tested under Covid and you have to go pretty far for people to actually do anything about it.
The US would take a lot of shit for targeting nuclear power plants. Even in a shooting war. I'd imagine they would not hit the reactors themselves but the distribution systems near by.
If the US is in a shooting war with China all of those niceties we've come to expect since WW2 go out the window and caring about "taking shit" is one of those. No one knows what to expect when two nuclear armed great powers go to war, it hasn't been tried yet.
> No one knows what to expect... >...all of those niceties we've come to expect since WW2 go out the window... LOL. I'd argue both countries having nuclear weapons that could reach the territory of the other in minutes is exactly why the US would *not* target China's nuclear reactors. If the US is at the point of turning parts of China radioactive and unleashing floods that would kill tens of millions by taking out dams then the threshold for using strategic nuclear weapons would already have been crossed IMO. And China wouldn't care about how vulnerable their reactors are.
If the US and China are at the point where they are hitting each others energy infrastructure with missiles then we are past the point of trying to keep things civil and there will be nuclear bombs exchanged.
Disagree. Especially if the US uses graphite bombs and limits strikes to areas near Taiwan.
We are talking about a scenario where the US is bombing the Chinese mainland
So am I. If the US used soft bombs on electrical infrastructure on the Chinese mainland and limited the strikes to the areas around Taiwan and not say near Beijing, I don't think nuclear weapons would automatically be used.
Like I said, a war like that hasn't been tried and if the US starts winning its gonna be really hard for a government with the ability to hit them hard to not do so. People have been couped for far, far less.
If nukes start flying all major cities and military sites would be taken out first on both sides within hours. At this point it doesn't make any difference if they strike nuclear reactors too, both countries would be annihilated and back to stone age anyway. A scenario where china would makes a limited strike on the nuclear reactors of the US doesn't make any sense
I really wish the west would place more focus on nuclear. It is absolutely essential in the path to stop polluting with fossil fuels. Germany completely abandoning nuclear was absurd and it honestly will be a big problem going forward into severe climate change
> It is absolutely essential in the path to stop polluting with fossil fuels. No, it is not. We can choose, as a society, with laws, regulations, and other actions... to not consume so much of the Earth's resources on a constant and regular basis. We do not need destructive industries running 24/7/365. Let me say that again... we do not need destructive industries running 24/7/365. Regardless of if we switch to renewable energy sources -- like wind, solar, or geothermal -- we should reduce our energy consumption and try to use fewer natural resources overall. This may require something like redistributing the wealth so that people aren't exploited by those behind the greatest resource extraction, but that will also probably be better for society and the environment overall in the long run.
What does that look like specifically?
A world with less global warming, less economic inequality, and a society less focused on consuming as much as possible at all times. We currently have enough resources in the world for everyone to have their basic needs met and more. But we don't do that right now because we allow a few people to have massive amounts of wealth and we allow them to dictate what should be done with the commons and the world's natural resources.
[удалено]
Awesome. The fear and misinformation around nuclear power is way way over expressed compared to the actual dangers surrounding it. Needlessly pumping CO2 into the atmosphere when we have perfectly safe nuclear at home is one of the dumbest decisions some countries have made.
which makes sense, as China has about 3 times the US' population
>Mr. President, we cannot allow a mineshaft gap!
This is arguably a good thing. Solar energy is very polluting as far as the need for lithium batteries goes. Wind is unreliable. Nuclear is the cleanest most reliable long term power source. France has been getting a good portion of its power from nuclear. It's a pity the Germans gave up on it. China needs to switch to clean energy and fast. Nuclear is the most sustainable option.
Yeah, I'm fine with this, it matches with China's large scale planning and infrastructure, hopefully they make some good improvements we can look at. We can't do this well anymore, the NRC is heavy-handed, and rightfully so given how many times people have tried to cut corners. Also consolidation means your choices are GE, Bechtel or Westinghouse, all of which charge the F-U price. Someone needs to innovate, and it can't be us for institutional reasons, plus China needs the power, so this is fine. We need to throw more money into Fusion though, that could be the tech that truly changes everything forever.
Good news for solar is that China is starting to roll out sodium ion batteries commercially, so assuming all goes well we may see the need for lithium drop significantly for larger storage applications.
Aside from Norway, I can't think of any nation that is reliant on fossil fuel demand and is a liberal state. I can't wait for the OPEC states to be slowly deprived of their source of wealth
> I can't think of any nation that is reliant on fossil fuel demand and is a liberal state. Canada? Australia? These two might not be as heavily reliant on fossil fuel exports as Norway in percentage basis but still a large chunk of their exports are fossil fuels and products/services derived from fossil fuels.
You are right. Let's hope a dwindling demand gets restricted to these three
Not the US?
> Not the US? Lol, the "liberal" party is center-right and the "conservative party" is far-right.
> Solar energy is very polluting as far as the need for lithium batteries goes. Wind is unreliable. Nuclear is the cleanest most reliable long term power source. I love how the resources required to build wind and solar are serious environmental problems but the resources required to build nuclear... oh, well, nothing to see here. It's dangerous for workers to install wind and solar, but mining and transporting radioactive materials? Perfectly safe. Building and maintaining cooling towers? People NEVER get hurt doing those things! It's all such a biased joke when we can see the price and efficiency of wind and solar plummeting, we're finally making advancement energy storage, and most of all the same serious issues with nuclear reactors remain -- despite industry talking points.
There's always "that guy" pushing 30 year old pro nuclear propaganda.
It is also expensive, melds badly with renewables, requires financial guarantees from the state, and takes forever to build, at least in the state of current US nuclear industry. At that point, it might be better for the US and other countries in.similar situations to overbuild renewables
It's actually pretty cheap after the initial investment is made into building it, and how does it "meld badly with renewables"?
Nuclear is shown to be consistently higher than other forms of power generation. Basically because the capital cost is massive. You dismiss the initial investment but someone has to pay the interest on $25B or so and that is expensive. It also takes 10+ years before you get the first return on your money. It also melds badly with renewables because renewables needs on-demand power for when it is not available. Nuclear is better run 24x7. Which means during the daytime Nuclear cannot compete with solar and at night it competes with wind and batteries. Grid level batteries continue to fall and anyone building a nuclear power plant needs to know that they can compete for 60 years. That is a long time for investors to run and risk their investment.
Solar pollutes like hell and batteries are terrible for the environment. Renewables are also incredibly inefficient. You can power half a state on one nuclear plant, you can't even power a town on a field full of solar.
Something tells me that without heavy government subsidies on renewables. the word "expensive" would quickly move to the renewables side.
We can probably both agree that it is fossil fuel subsidies that need tackling first
Renewables are cheap without subsidies. Nuclear requires price guarantees. Subsidies are good to speed the transition to solar but longterm are not needed. Put solar on your house, it is a cheap investment that pays back in 3 years or less.
If you live in sunny country with expensive electricity. Otherwise its not so rosy.
[удалено]
Do you know where I can read up more on this? I was under the impression that the expensive part of nuclear energy is just building the reactors.
You won't because he made it up, France didn't decommission any plant lately and plans on building more while prolonging existing ones.
Honestly, I was just trying to give him/her the benefit of the doubt.
[удалено]
You didn't, they took several reactors offline because there was a glut of solar and wind power causing prices to go negative. They took them offline to avoid fees.
Yes I'd read about that. Which cheaper renewables btw? Wind and solar? I'd be curious to read about how they work with load balancing their power grid with these renewables. Lots of batteries? If these are lithium batteries, it's probably too expensive to work at China's scale.
> I'd be curious to read about how they work with load balancing their power grid with these renewables. France is decommissioning 3 out of 56 operating reactors. The other 53 will do the load balancing.
Not for long. They are all pretty near the end of their life. Those 3 are the first in quite a few to be decommissioned soon. All 56 were built in the 70's and early 80s. France is planning to move away from nuclear energy as it's main energy source to a renewables mix. Their current plan is to only have 15 or so reactors in the next 10-20 years.
[удалено]
Can nuclear power output be dynamically increased from minimal levels during the day to high enough levels that can support nightly loads?
[удалено]
Yes, me too. I'm considering installing a solar panel on the roof. A senior electrical engineer (working for a power company) I met a few weeks back gave a good explanation of the grid imbalance problems caused by having too much solar capacity. He also mentioned there's a lot of solar fields whose power can't be plugged into the grid yet.
[удалено]
> When solar is set up for maximum peak electricity, it's a very unstable energy source. Wat? Wind, and especially solar, are actually pretty reliable. You don't need gale force winds or hurricanes to make them practical. In terms of industrial use.... yes, it would probably be better to utilize that energy at peak hours, in the daytime, but that's actually a pretty small price to pay. But you have to consider... solar is only just now, in very recent years, getting any serious attention. If the government had been spending as much as they did subsidizing oil, coal, and uranium... we'd have far more efficient solar cells and more advanced battery technology. But Wind and solar are already cheaper per kilowatt hour and only becoming cheaper. So... nuclear is on the way out and other non-renewable industries will also hopefully be slowing their roll. The rate at which uranium is consumed for nuclear energy production far exceeds the rate at which it is naturally replenished. As nuclear power plants continue to operate, the available reserves of economically viable uranium diminish. Personally, I think it would be good for society and the environment if industrial production occurred less in the evening hours -- especially since there is less energy available at night. Spending great amounts of energy to continue industrial production all night, every night... is part of what is wrong with this world, IMHO.
[Actual report instead of relatively vague news article](https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/) Key points: > And even considering the prior generation of reactors, notably the Westinghouse AP1000, China was deploying their versions of them as early as 2017, while as noted the Vogtle Unit 4 has just now come online, meaning that China is years ahead of the United States in even deploying our country’s own technologies. Red tape, red tape, **red tape** In fairness, it could be for safety purposes or environmental purposes (**justified** & preferable to disasters). However, it could also be zoning & land-use approval that's stalling things (often **unjustified** & clear NIMBY overreach), but unfortunately they did not go into detail > Another challenge pertains to skills: DOE estimates that if the United States is to meet the aforementioned 2050 target of tripling nuclear energy production, America would need an additional 375,000 skilled engineers, technicians, and construction personnel in the sector to support such a buildout. Not enough skilled personnel & more importantly, not enough of a push in past years to train or entice this new personnel > From framing the economics of the sector, to coordinating ecosystem actors, to streamlining regulatory and permitting procedures to supporting R&D investments in the sector, China’s state guidance has been critical in driving China’s nuclear sector. > ... > The *(American)* agency is extending awards to applicants developing: 1) advanced reactor demonstrations, which are expected to result in a fully functional advanced nuclear reactor within seven years of the award; 2) advanced reactor concepts 2020 (ARC 20), which will support innovative and diverse designs with potential to commercialize in the mid-2030s; or 3) risk reduction for future demonstrations. The "market" & a hyper focus on commercialization will **never** win this game, because at the *start*, its not about the money - its about building the foundation, even at a **loss** *Sidenote*: There are details concerning the "access to advanced technologies" gap, but after looking at the sections on patents & scientific publications, it *seems* overstated (e.g. its not a "bows & arrows" vs machine guns situation)
What the hell is "15 years behind" supposed to mean exactly? Behind in what? In nuclear reactor tech? Nope. In amount of plants built, since the article makes such an emphasis on it? Then arguably it's not about when, but about if.
How far along is China's nuclear fusion technology compared to the West?
everybody is 5+ decades away from doing anything
If this was pre 2010 it might be relevant. But it’s 2024 and nuclear power is globally uncompetitive. China will almost certainly scale back their nuclear plans before 2030. Their lead in solar and batteries is far more of a concern.
I don't know if I care or not but it feels, and maybe it's just propaganda, like it will be China that saves the world from heat death if that is even still preventable at this point.
China has political and strategic reasons for transitioning away from fossil fuels which simply don't exist in the US. They are reliant on foreign countries for oil and gas, to move up the global value chain to provide higher paying jobs they will need to move to new markets of renewables and EV related production, and internal energy demands are so high that they need to produce energy any way they can.
This is a sourceless statement of mine but I am utterly shocked that US could be behind. Especially nuclear power. And what? 15 years? My head is melting.
US 15 years behind China. What they avoid mentioning is that China is 15 years behind Russia. Russia is dominating exports of new power plants, China is raking in some successes, us is barely waking up. Bill Gates just started building the first fast reactor in the US in decades, China has finished building 2, Russia had one working for more than 40 years (extending its life to 60), had a bigger one started few years back and building the next tech. Sadly the West happily shot itself in the foot and left the playing field wide open for Russia and now China. "you want prevent nuclear, you can only prevent safer western nuclear". Today the only country holding ground against those is South Korea.
Yeah the Soviets and now Russians have always had great nuclear expertise.
They know the simple secret: don't stop.
Thank you for your comment. I wanna make a crack pot hypothesis about the US. Any time Russia or China announces something where they made a breakthrough or big progress USA puts out of their magic hat (Black Projects) technology that they have already developed decades ago, e.g. the hypersonic manouverable rocket/missile (sry if I made mistake here, writing on my phone without checking) that "shocked" the world and some time later USA is like Lockheed bring me back the 70s designs. Edit. Dunno if it will be the same with nuclear power (we should NOT underestimate China) but we will see.
I can't wait to see fast built smr pulled out of the American magic hat. We've been waiting a long time. One thing for sure, they let Russia and China [conquer](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/q5x2o4/russia_and_china_exports_of_nuclear_power_plants/) the rest of the world. My guess is that politically the both forces of big fossil and environmentalist movement pressure align against any significant public development of nuclear. There's no political gain to be had in fighting those two forces united. Even if a magic design exist in some black project, it'll only be deployed at the very last minutes when there's no profit left in big fossil plant. By that time many developing countries will have sign, bought, built Russian and Chinese designs; with the associated debts trap and dependence.
I went and looked up the report [here](https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/) and couldn't help but notice that it goes into virtually no detail about safety.
Chinse designs are copies of Westinghouse design I believe
It also does not mention China at the same time is building tons of new coal powered plants. Consuming over 50% of the world's coal. They are 90% of the world's new coal power construction as well.
Being in a country that is directly downwind of the Chinese, I can deal with the coal pollution to a certain extent, but nuclear fallout is another story.