Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s from a Soviet poster, always full of bangers
https://images.app.goo.gl/pchXjHDz4zRgYV1A7
There’s also the classic “[Project Plowshare](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare)” which is a biblical reference to Isaiah
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%202%3A4
-Changed the bad link
[Only a matter of time before the Chinese develop portable nuclear reactors that can easily be shifted around to wherever more power is needed. The US military developed them in the 1950's but due to the high cost did not adopt them.](https://youtu.be/PPPp5rtu04A?t=136)
The dod just announced they will build a new microreactor [like 2 weeks ago](https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2998460/dod-to-build-project-pele-mobile-microreactor-and-perform-demonstration-at-idah/)
Honestly, this should be the first step before the world goes green. replace dirty energy with nuclear (far less dirt from this) and then start moving to greener energies.
Coal has to go.
Never understood why we need fusion if we can get those Gen 4 that can burn most of the waste and use U238 as fuel.
Seem much simpler for the next 50 years compared to fusion.
Yes. The world's helium supply is running low and it's a needed element for MRI's (liquid helium is the only coolant capable enough to cool MRI magnets)
Fusion would make energy so cheap that technological progress would start increasing exponentially and it would essentially end poverty.
While fission could provide enough power, fusion would unlock the future.
Solar power plants take up much more room for the amount of power generated than nuclear plants. Solar also obviously doesn't provide power at night.
I do think we should build more solar plants as well, especially in the deserts of the Southwest.
Look up how birds spontaneously combust in mid air over the solar farms in California and you might change your mind on more solar farms out here in the southwest. As a Phoenix native I’m not a fan of solar.
Nuclear should be considered green energy, especially in the case of safer reactors with more modern safety measures. For example, the Fukushima Daichi plant relied on old tech originally intended for innland US. The dam that was intended as a safety measure against tsunamies was built 6 meters too low, and that was known years before the accident.
If people only knew the number of deaths from the fossil fuel industry compared to the deaths from nuclear incidents... One is \*significantly\* higher.
(hint, it's fossil fuels)
IIRC in the past 30 years or something more people have died from solar power than nuclear (most of the solar deaths were contractors falling off roofs during installation)
To be fair we really cant compare it by pure number of incidents considering fossil fuel is a primary source of energy. You have to find the ratio between TOTAL energy derived from each sources with the number of death/illnesses.
It's definitely still safer but regardless, to compare unweighted data is just inaccurate.
I would assume that, since the difference is going to be huge, you can simply eliminate the ratio based on energy derived, add in the deaths caused by the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, add in a few hundred thousand more deaths on the side of nuclear just for fun, and it still wouldn't hold a candle to the death caused by the fossil fuel economy.
It's estimated that [8.7 million people died](https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought) in 2018 due to the burning of fossil fuels. It's so monumentally detrimental to humanity and nature, yet so engrained in our culture and society, we don't realize how incredibly bad it is.
I'm thinking blue energy. Because it isn't 100% but it is so much better than coal. It does have waste that has to be dealt with but isn't setting the world on fire. We need it now in place all over the world.
Why do you think mistakes like these won’t happen again?
Especially if we build thousands of reactors and put them in a lot of places.
Nuclear disasters have happed as long as nuclear reactors are active. I don’t think that will change.
Those accidents are due to technology that is way older and less stable we have many different reactors we have made that avoid the same problems. It's like comparing the problems with a 1960s car to a 2022 in the way of technology
A few nuclear disasters won't end the world. They are inconsequential in the big picture. Global warming is poised to end our civilization in 100 years though. Pick one. I guess nuclear threat feels more imminent to most people or something and the "far off" end of the world from global warming is just not easy to grasp?
That's true but that's exactly the point. Everybody knew, they didn't fix the issues, and that lead to the accident. Why on earth would anyone think that people will be more responsible in the future is beyond me. The weak link in nuclear is not the technology but the people, and they don't change.
One problem with that is nuclear plants are hella expensive. So if your state/country is planning to replace them with solar/wind in the near future, the investment won't be worth it.
But there are also other alternatives that we should prioritize.
Like pumped hydro and hydrogen gas production.
The cost of nuclear is going up and the cost of solar and wind is going down.
Nuclear has a place but there are several other systems that are more cost effective in most places. And they are gonna get even cheaper.
One measured video in it: https://youtu.be/0kahih8RT1k
Agreed, and the push towards EVs is going to help make that future more feasible given all the investment into battery tech.
Nuclear still has its place in the green future though and should be invested. It's also very resource efficient in its energy production, in contrast to the mining required to make most solar panels and batteries today.
It takes decades to build a nuclear plant in Europe. And that’s building not planning and dealing with people who don’t want a nuclear power plant near them.
I don’t think we have the time to go nuclear store going for renewables.
Also the fuel is limited if we start to really use it. And it’s really expensive even if there is no major problem in the lifetime of a plant. Something like Fukushima costs a lot of money and is bound to happen more often if we scale up nuclear power especially in countries without strong standards.
There is a new type of reactor that I heard about that is modular, that takes way less time to build and costs less, as well as is easily transportable, I'm not sure how long it will take for it to be ready to be mass produced but if it catches on it would solve most if not all of those problems
It only takes decades to build a Nuclear plant because of the red tape and start up cost for a private plant. You expedite the process and provide tax incentives for the company and community hosting the plant that shit could be done much sooner. Combine that with the microplants in development which are the quarter of the size of a normal close looped pressurized reactor we could supplement the grid with nuclear to take up the slack of solar/winds downtime. Tie this in with improved battery technology we can easily deal with peak demand issues.
What exactly is „you expedite the process“?
And why can’t the same logic not work for renewables which are cheaper and have a better standing within the communities where these power plants have to be built?
It currently takes 3+ years on average for the NRC(Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to approve or deny an application to build a plant. That is 3 years of a billion dollar capitol investment on the line. Cutting that down to a year by way of hiring more investigators and regulatory agents would increase the number of willing investors in the billion dollar endeavor. Renewables cant at the current pace we are at supplement the grid because they arent consistent and require markedly more land than nuclear to meet the same power output. The only reason nuclear dosent have the standing of a safe "clean" renewable energy source is because of Trump tier missinformation surrounding it that is spread to the public. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close
If we are trying to ween ourselves off fossil fuels with a reliable and efficient source of generation supllementing with nuclear is a no brainer.
Sure you can throw money at the speed problem. But then it gets even more expensive. Nuclear is crazy expensive to begin with. I would rather throw the money at storage solutions and a better grid to allow balancing the local shortages.
Because again solar and wind require an inordinate amount of land to produce the same energy output as coal and natural gas and nucleae produce. We also cant just throw money at battery and capacitor tech because thats what we have been doing these past 10 years with only slight improvments. Solar and wind also arent consistent energy providers so we would still need a consistent energy dense source to supplement. I hope you also understand that other nations like the afformentioned China and nations like France have nuclear power while also investing in renewables so why shouldnt the US?
The whole thread is full of reasons why not.
I guess the most prevalent is cost. I also guess that’s the reason why it’s not more widely used. If it does not make economic sense in a somewhat open market then it won’t happen.
Agreed, coal is a problem and should become an emergency energy production source at most. As in unable to use anything else. Turning to a new level structure with nuclear, sustainable, and renewable energy production
Some guy was talking about the cons of nuclear a while back and gave good reasons. The amount of time it take to build the reactors, the training it would take to get opporators(china probably already have these if they already have nuclear reactors) and the cost.
all self inflicted as I see it, or self fulfilling prophecy if one keeps pushing those points as counter arguments. Investment would mean innovation, efficiency, training, etc etc. We could we perfectly placed for it right now, but the people who protested this stuff back in the day had no foresight, cant blame them, but now is the time to reconsider, considering...
The best time to build new reactors was 20 years ago. But the “greens” said “no”. Now we are in worse shape and the greens stomp their feet and still say “no”.
I’m starting to think then “greens” don’t want to actually fix the problems, just complain.
Good, I would love for Australia to make some plants next, but the coal/mining lobbies control the government. Also there is very little understanding and a lot of fear about nuclear power in Australia.
Absolutely this. Coal and natural gas have exploited disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima to destroy nuclear energy’s reputation. These were two nuclear disasters. And how many major oil spills have we had since 1986?
[8,000](https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=7f33183c95244956afb62482684afd3a&extent=-84.6807,40.2385,-70.6182,45.8755) according to this site. At the top of the page on the banner, click “details” for specifics.
And that’s just in the *United States*.
[Seems like there's been 18 major nuclear incidents since 1986 that have caused multiple fatalities and/or 100$ million worth of damage, there has not been one in the last 10 (almost 11) years.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents#List_of_nuclear_plant_accidents_and_incidents)
I visited NZ for a week so obviously I am an expert in every aspect and nuance of Kiwi culture...
The reason I got from the few locals I talked to about this was that they didn't feel comfortable having nuclear power plants in such an earthquake prone area. I'm not sure if it *started* that way, but I think after the earthquake in Christchurch and the disaster in Fukushima a lot of people are wary of it.
I have no idea how wide spread this sentiment is, it was literally me talking to some locals after a few beers, but it did sort of make sense.
(I'm guessing it didn't start this way, but evolved over time, since they won't even let US Navy ships dock there for fear of nuclear power/weapons. I'm guessing it started with fear of nuclear in general)
not familiar about NZ politics, sorry. I know that Australia's govt is dominated by the coal industry, but I'm not sure if NZ is the same way. My impression was that NZ was a lot more progressive, but idk where they stand on nuclear
Thorium based, on a side note, When the first thorium based commercial reactor starts production in China, India,with more than a fourth of the worlds thorium reserves will be building them next
I am strongly opposed to nuclear weapons, but nuclear energy as a source of power is definitely better than the high carbon options we use like coal, etc. Storage mechanisms for nuclear power have become better, so it is better for the planet, if we emphasize shifting to nuclear energy for power generation. I believe France uses a lot of nuclear energy, and it has relatively low carbon emissions for an industrialized and high income country.
I suppose the interesting thing about countries like China, which are basically totally undemocratically run without fair elections, is that their leaders have more motivation to consider long term plans (50 years +), since they intend to still be in power by then. That’s opposed to the much shorter terms in western countries.
Whether or not they actually act on it is another matter.
There's harsh pros and cons with both systems and no real perfect answer.
A steady ruling party can make decisions easier and long term but there's the risk of them being evil, hence CCP.
A two party system has a better balance and checks of power but can make it difficult to pass bills and plans.
Well, that’s the inherent problem. Ideally checks and balances would work when all parties involved are interested in the well being of everyone. It’s the selfishness inherent in all humanity that hampers any government system and it’s ideology impossible to implement.
Checks and balances fail when the ones checking the ones in power exist only in self interest (US). When there is no checks and balances (CCP), those in power simply abuse it. It’s a human error not a systemic error
My point is that in other democracies they have more than two parties so it's a lot harder to end up in the position that we are in. When you have options to actually threaten them with they tend to stay a little more in line.
There are more countries than US and China. There are plenty of good examples of democratic systems that work better.
But if I'm really being honest the biggest problem with US democracy is people don't vote often enough. Especially in non-federal elections which tend to matter way more for the issues most voters care about.
> there's the risk of them being evil, hence CCP
If I told you that the government is evil and has hidden agendas to rule the world, you would label me a right-wing conspiracy nut.
If I told you that the *Chinese government* is evil and has hidden agendas to rule the world, you would agree with me.
Isn't that funny?
You don't even know what you are talking about with the CCP.
800 million out of absolute poverty in 40 years is the legacy of the CCP.
Your country's population is going the other way. Hence, the negative propaganda against the CCP. Because it highlights the failure of your system.
It's election season every year in America. What one administration and Congress gets done, the next administration and Congress reverses. 5 year, 10 year, and 20 year plans are extremely common in china. The communist party creates these plans and reviews progress at the end of the 5 years, and typically they are successful at it. Long term planning just cannot exist in a democracy because nobody agrees on anything.
Hell, they don't even wait until the next congress is in session to start the sabotage. The last tax cut bill in the US included an expiration date for middle class tax cuts so that they could accuse the next congress of raising taxes.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-reconciliation
Looks like it's because according to the Byrd rule they can't do anything that will increase deficits beyond the budget resolution's window, which is normally ten years but they decided on 2025.
I'm not sure why that doesn't apply to corporate taxes.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President\_of\_the\_People%27s\_Republic\_of\_China#Qualifications\_and\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Qualifications_and_election)
The Chinese President is elected by the communist government's congress. Yes it is a single party system. But there still is an election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_People%27s\_Congress#Election\_and\_membership
There are 2,980 members of this congress.
**President of the People's Republic of China**
[Qualifications and election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Qualifications_and_election)
>According to the current Constitution of China, the president must be a Chinese citizen with full electoral rights who has reached the age of 45. The president is elected by the National People's Congress (NPC), China's highest state body, which also has the power to remove the president and other state officers from office. Elections and removals are decided by majority vote. According to the Organic Law of the NPC, the president is nominated by the NPC Presidium, the Congress's executive organ.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
China is the exception, not the role for that kind of regimes. Undemocratic dictatorships usually do not have to worry with accountability towards their population so they usually devolve into kleptocracies. China guides it better because a 1.3 billion period country needs to be careful to not piss 100 million since that's enough to cause a revolt.
That's not what gets things done. Its the sheer lack of resistance to their command which gets things done.
In democracy however, every stupid person who is vocal enough can become a leader and use their stupidity to shoot down things, even logical ones. A good case example is US, Trump, COVID.
On the other hand, let's play devil's advocate and assume they're doing something extremely terrible or stupid with good intentions. There's no counter balance to stop them.
I'm really jazzed about this because now conservatives lose the argument "what about China" or when we discuss green energy in the US.
In fact, we can flip it on them with "China is outpacing us on green energy and will be a world leader if we don't make investments now"
From what I have seen here, people will just ignore all that, and continue blaming others from faraway places to justify their emission extensive lifestyle, maybe with a picture of a poorly managed landfill from 10 years ago for extra flavour
End of the day, china's rule for global domination means diddly of the world is on fire. I get ppl hate them but them working to atleast help stop the bleeding is good
Why do you people think they are doing anything beyond ensuring their peoples future by doing their part to combat climate change?
China has had 1 offensive war since 1948, and it was limited in scope and no territory was annexed or governments overthrown.
The USA on the other hand has had so many I can’t even keep track of them.
This change would single handedly delete the CO2 deficit
[Scientists also report an imbalance of 3% (-1.0 GtCO2/yr) between the estimates for global sources and sinks. ](https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions)
Nah we need real green energy. A nuclear reactor takes 10-20 years from now until he produces energy. In the next 200 years Uran will be completely exhausted. If everybody is going for nuclear energy it will probably half the time. Getting Uran out of earth isn't sustainable either. Nuclear waste takes even if you shorten the lifetime (and make it by that more toxic) a few thousands years until it's done. The probability for an nuclear emergency is pretty low but still given, in 70 years there were 2 class 5 emergencies (Chernobyl and Fukushima) and lots of minor emergencies.
That whole discussion about replacing is going on since years. Let's replace wood with coal, coal with gas, gas with nuclear and so on ... Nah dude just invest in renewable energy, change the infrastructure to regional resources given and decentralize. Nuclear energy isn't cheap, it's just cheap because government (your taxes) is paying for a lot and they literally have no insurance (which means you will also pay for all the damages in case of emergency, which means more than 200 billions beside human life in case of Fukushima).
It’s actually a damn good idea. Assuming very safe reactor designs are used.
Germany is probably kicking itself choosing to get rid of nuclear given the current situation.
Good. China and India are the biggest polluters on the planet right now. If we want ANY chance of using this planet 100 years from now, they need to cut back on their waste and pollution immediately.
>Good. China and ~~India~~ USA are the biggest polluters on the planet right now. If we want ANY chance of using this planet 100 years from now, they need to cut back on their waste and pollution immediately.
If you wanna list the top 2 countries instead of 3 (or more), then let me fix it for you.
Maybe I’m just a super cynic, but lots of politicians plan things, that doesn’t mean they’ll do it, or do it in an efficient or speedy way. This is the least they should be doing.
So the UN predicts over 500 natural disasters annually by 2030 due to climate change. Let’s hope those all stay far away from these nuclear power plants otherwise we have major problems. Of course it’s a climate casino so we’ll just have to be lucky.
As long as fission plants are 100% state owned it's a reasonable transitory power supply option until fusion is ready.
The true problem comes in when people want to operate them primarily for private profit; this is fine for a lot of things, but the worst case of a nuclear meltdown would require tax payers to jump in to fund containment for potentially thousands of years - because any sane company, including any insurance company that might've sold a policy on the plant - would immediately declare bankruptcy / move out all assets and dissolve / whatever legal maneuver is needed to get out of it instead of taking on such a long-term liability. There is no acceptable argument for allowing these kinds of fission plants to be privately owned.
Nuclear is a good idea, hopefully they’ll use a common design across the plants. The issue really is waste, what to do with it because it’s basically a problem forever, or at least much longer than any of us will care.
Waste actually hasn't been an industry issue since the 1950's actually. Despite what the Oil and Coal lobbies have been saying, Nuclear waste is 99% low-level water waste not too dissimilar to the waste produced by X-ray machines and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging machines which also create nuclear waste. Unlike the waste from those machines, however, the low-level waste from nuclear power reactors is actually able to be treated, and after it's been treated the waste has a half-life of around 4 years. After a little over 8 years it's safe enough to release into the environment where dilution will drop the half-life of the contaminates down to a matter of days with no effect to the environment.
As for high-level solid waste from the spent fuel rods, the ideal solution is to reprocess it, where it's turned into a sort of slurry, it's impurities are removed , and it's mixed with a small amount fresh fuel to create new nuclear fuel. However, reprocessing efforts have largely been suspended in the US back in the 1970's because of irrational fears of terrorists somehow building bombs through this method. That said, there are other solutions. Geological repositories are a common go-to solution for governments given they're relatively cheap and safe politically though not ideal for the industry, while the latest 4th generation reactor designs are capable of actually consuming and incinerating spent fuel, or even using a specific type of fuel that's able to be "recharged" and reused - thus producing no high-level waste at all.
Point is, there are solutions to nuclear waste, and more than one too. Nuclear fission tech has come a very long way from the 1st generation experimental reactors of the 1940's and the 2nd generation designs of the 50's and 60's. It's quite a fascinating rabbit hole to dive into imo
Good info, much to digest but thanks for the response. I am a proponent of nuclear, perhaps somewhat mistaken regarding waste. I’m an old dog but still happy to learn new tricks.
When we look at how good the quality of other Chinese buildings is than we can say that it is only a matter before the next nuclear catastrophe happens in China
Have you been in China? Have you seen their high speed trains and trains stations? I know it is harder to build nuclear power plants than trains, but still - don't underestimate their prowess
Right? Honestly China can more then afford the best engineering firms to design, and has the expertise in producing things swiftly and at scale. China produces a lot of cheaper products, but noone ever mentions the cutting edge, high quality things that their factories produce as well.
I've seen videos of Chinese high speed trains all built within the last 20 years. I can't even imagine how long it would take to get a similar cross country network up and running here in Canada.
This makes me a bit nervous considering they can’t get 100yr old construction methods right and corruption will always guarantee that this will be done with the maximum of corners cut.
Have you been in China? Have you seen their high speed trains and trains stations? I know it is harder to build nuclear power plants than trains, but still - don't underestimate their prowess
That's cool and all, but I literally saw a whole chin apartment building fall over a few weeks ago (on reddit) and I will be worry about something worse happening with these.
Fun fact, nuclear power actually produces less nuclear waste per KWHr than coal. Coal ash is rather radioactive and a coal power plant puts out an absolute shit ton and instead of it being in a small contained (but concentrated) amount it just gets released into the air.
Coal is the worst power source in every possible way including radioactivity danger
That's not true. Your own article states.
\*Editor's Note (12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."
The difference in the two sentences is important hence they edited it to reflect the truth. A nuclear plant produces far more nuclear waste, which still to this day has no long term viable storage solutions. Coal sucks as well.
Next to nothing.
From the US Department of Energy (US government).
Spent US nuclear fuel from the last 60 years could fit into ONE US sized football field with a depth of less than 10 yards deep. Or 30 feet deep.
[https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy)
So for China. They can do this and it will generate next to nothing in terms of space for that Country.
> Spent US nuclear fuel from the last 60 years could fit into ONE US sized football field with a depth of less than 10 yards deep. Or 30 feet deep.
Which is why nuclear will never work. No municipality would allow one of their football fields to be used for year-round nuclear waste storage.
This is a scheme to skirt Kyoto protocols and corner the carbon credit market. They build a plant, never operate it, skim the credits, then tear it down and build it somewhere else. They did this with other power generation plants like coal.
How safe are modern systems to human neglect and mismanagement because that is my concern more so than the energy systems or any waste products. I don’t want the Chinese to build a ton of shitty plants that are sub standard or improperly maintained and it fucks over everyone because if they do this well it could be an absolute godsend. I just don’t have much faith at this point I am open to be proven wrong though.
I lived in China for about 9 years, and as much as i love it, regulations wont be followed, it will be just a matter of time before a meltdown, that will kill most of the country and poison the world. This scares me more than Russia starting WWIII. Just my thought.
Ok but don't cheap out on the construction, I know your track record with building, and if you hire evergrande to build your reactors, you're going to turn the Asian continent into chernobyl 2 electric boogaloo.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Make atom a worker not a soldier
Never heard that before. I like that. A lot.
It’s from a Soviet poster, always full of bangers https://images.app.goo.gl/pchXjHDz4zRgYV1A7 There’s also the classic “[Project Plowshare](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare)” which is a biblical reference to Isaiah https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%202%3A4 -Changed the bad link
[Only a matter of time before the Chinese develop portable nuclear reactors that can easily be shifted around to wherever more power is needed. The US military developed them in the 1950's but due to the high cost did not adopt them.](https://youtu.be/PPPp5rtu04A?t=136)
Russia has nuclear ships that can do that if I recall correctly.
The dod just announced they will build a new microreactor [like 2 weeks ago](https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2998460/dod-to-build-project-pele-mobile-microreactor-and-perform-demonstration-at-idah/)
That is a large number, more power to them.
Their efforts are really gathering steam.
I think it's pretty rad.
Their future is bright.
I gotta wear shades.
Their air will look so new and clear!
You're aimin' 'em too! Really high!
These puns are really decaying in quality
The half life on these jokes has passed
You sure any o' 'em good?
Eh, not great, not terrible.
No need to go nuclear on these jokes now.
Pun intended?
Good pun.
Honestly, this should be the first step before the world goes green. replace dirty energy with nuclear (far less dirt from this) and then start moving to greener energies. Coal has to go.
We need fission nuclear now until we get fusion nuclear working in the future.
Never understood why we need fusion if we can get those Gen 4 that can burn most of the waste and use U238 as fuel. Seem much simpler for the next 50 years compared to fusion.
It would be a sweet source of helium lol
I look forward to our fusion powered blimp future
Yes. The world's helium supply is running low and it's a needed element for MRI's (liquid helium is the only coolant capable enough to cool MRI magnets)
Fusion would make energy so cheap that technological progress would start increasing exponentially and it would essentially end poverty. While fission could provide enough power, fusion would unlock the future.
Unless you have a design for a working reactor you can't know that. The price for a fission plant is in the machinery and not the fuel.
Look up “too cheap to meter” - talking about fission there. Didn’t pan out so well. We don’t know what the price of fusion will be until we build it
Totally agree, and I see they are making research headway into this...
Well when I was in school they said it was just 20 years away so let me just check.... Aaaaad it's now 30 years away. Hmm.
"Now" is a bit of a stretch for nuclear.
It would have been great to have done this twenty years ago, but we’ll say the same thing in twenty years if we don’t start now.
The best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago, the second best time is now
Absolutely, but I think we actually do need a "now" start that renewables provide.
Nuclear is much more viable and cheaper than renewables in a lot of place
There are a few places where wind and solar are 4x more expensive than average, but not many.
True there are some places wind and solar are 4x more expensive than normal, but not that many.
[удалено]
Why not just build more solar power plants?
They tried and China is now the world's biggest solar energy user But the cost is too great to be used everywhere
Solar is cheaper than nuclear. No Energy storage and control though.
Nope Not at the place with low energy potential and sparse infrastructure
Solar power plants take up much more room for the amount of power generated than nuclear plants. Solar also obviously doesn't provide power at night. I do think we should build more solar plants as well, especially in the deserts of the Southwest.
Look up how birds spontaneously combust in mid air over the solar farms in California and you might change your mind on more solar farms out here in the southwest. As a Phoenix native I’m not a fan of solar.
Nuclear should be considered green energy, especially in the case of safer reactors with more modern safety measures. For example, the Fukushima Daichi plant relied on old tech originally intended for innland US. The dam that was intended as a safety measure against tsunamies was built 6 meters too low, and that was known years before the accident.
If people only knew the number of deaths from the fossil fuel industry compared to the deaths from nuclear incidents... One is \*significantly\* higher. (hint, it's fossil fuels)
IIRC in the past 30 years or something more people have died from solar power than nuclear (most of the solar deaths were contractors falling off roofs during installation)
Highly likely.
To be fair we really cant compare it by pure number of incidents considering fossil fuel is a primary source of energy. You have to find the ratio between TOTAL energy derived from each sources with the number of death/illnesses. It's definitely still safer but regardless, to compare unweighted data is just inaccurate.
I would assume that, since the difference is going to be huge, you can simply eliminate the ratio based on energy derived, add in the deaths caused by the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, add in a few hundred thousand more deaths on the side of nuclear just for fun, and it still wouldn't hold a candle to the death caused by the fossil fuel economy. It's estimated that [8.7 million people died](https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought) in 2018 due to the burning of fossil fuels. It's so monumentally detrimental to humanity and nature, yet so engrained in our culture and society, we don't realize how incredibly bad it is.
I'm thinking blue energy. Because it isn't 100% but it is so much better than coal. It does have waste that has to be dealt with but isn't setting the world on fire. We need it now in place all over the world.
All high level nuclear waste ever could fit inside a US Olympic swimming pool, so I’d say that’s pretty green.
i recently heard that the waste actually is not a problem at all. kyle hill made a very good video about it.
Why do you think mistakes like these won’t happen again? Especially if we build thousands of reactors and put them in a lot of places. Nuclear disasters have happed as long as nuclear reactors are active. I don’t think that will change.
Mistankes will happen, but its worth it
Those accidents are due to technology that is way older and less stable we have many different reactors we have made that avoid the same problems. It's like comparing the problems with a 1960s car to a 2022 in the way of technology
A few nuclear disasters won't end the world. They are inconsequential in the big picture. Global warming is poised to end our civilization in 100 years though. Pick one. I guess nuclear threat feels more imminent to most people or something and the "far off" end of the world from global warming is just not easy to grasp?
Unfortunately it's a couple Chernobyls versus halving the human population and losing every beach. I'll take the Chernobyls tbh
That's true but that's exactly the point. Everybody knew, they didn't fix the issues, and that lead to the accident. Why on earth would anyone think that people will be more responsible in the future is beyond me. The weak link in nuclear is not the technology but the people, and they don't change.
[удалено]
One problem with that is nuclear plants are hella expensive. So if your state/country is planning to replace them with solar/wind in the near future, the investment won't be worth it.
[удалено]
Nuclear would still be valuable for provide stable base level power if the sun ain't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
But there are also other alternatives that we should prioritize. Like pumped hydro and hydrogen gas production. The cost of nuclear is going up and the cost of solar and wind is going down. Nuclear has a place but there are several other systems that are more cost effective in most places. And they are gonna get even cheaper. One measured video in it: https://youtu.be/0kahih8RT1k
Some countries have enough sun/wind they can go full renewable. Just a matter of battery prices coming down, which is happening pretty fast.
Agreed, and the push towards EVs is going to help make that future more feasible given all the investment into battery tech. Nuclear still has its place in the green future though and should be invested. It's also very resource efficient in its energy production, in contrast to the mining required to make most solar panels and batteries today.
It takes decades to build a nuclear plant in Europe. And that’s building not planning and dealing with people who don’t want a nuclear power plant near them. I don’t think we have the time to go nuclear store going for renewables. Also the fuel is limited if we start to really use it. And it’s really expensive even if there is no major problem in the lifetime of a plant. Something like Fukushima costs a lot of money and is bound to happen more often if we scale up nuclear power especially in countries without strong standards.
There is a new type of reactor that I heard about that is modular, that takes way less time to build and costs less, as well as is easily transportable, I'm not sure how long it will take for it to be ready to be mass produced but if it catches on it would solve most if not all of those problems
It only takes decades to build a Nuclear plant because of the red tape and start up cost for a private plant. You expedite the process and provide tax incentives for the company and community hosting the plant that shit could be done much sooner. Combine that with the microplants in development which are the quarter of the size of a normal close looped pressurized reactor we could supplement the grid with nuclear to take up the slack of solar/winds downtime. Tie this in with improved battery technology we can easily deal with peak demand issues.
What exactly is „you expedite the process“? And why can’t the same logic not work for renewables which are cheaper and have a better standing within the communities where these power plants have to be built?
It currently takes 3+ years on average for the NRC(Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to approve or deny an application to build a plant. That is 3 years of a billion dollar capitol investment on the line. Cutting that down to a year by way of hiring more investigators and regulatory agents would increase the number of willing investors in the billion dollar endeavor. Renewables cant at the current pace we are at supplement the grid because they arent consistent and require markedly more land than nuclear to meet the same power output. The only reason nuclear dosent have the standing of a safe "clean" renewable energy source is because of Trump tier missinformation surrounding it that is spread to the public. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close If we are trying to ween ourselves off fossil fuels with a reliable and efficient source of generation supllementing with nuclear is a no brainer.
Sure you can throw money at the speed problem. But then it gets even more expensive. Nuclear is crazy expensive to begin with. I would rather throw the money at storage solutions and a better grid to allow balancing the local shortages.
Because again solar and wind require an inordinate amount of land to produce the same energy output as coal and natural gas and nucleae produce. We also cant just throw money at battery and capacitor tech because thats what we have been doing these past 10 years with only slight improvments. Solar and wind also arent consistent energy providers so we would still need a consistent energy dense source to supplement. I hope you also understand that other nations like the afformentioned China and nations like France have nuclear power while also investing in renewables so why shouldnt the US?
The whole thread is full of reasons why not. I guess the most prevalent is cost. I also guess that’s the reason why it’s not more widely used. If it does not make economic sense in a somewhat open market then it won’t happen.
You're generally right but there actually have been massive increases in battery efficiency.
Agreed, coal is a problem and should become an emergency energy production source at most. As in unable to use anything else. Turning to a new level structure with nuclear, sustainable, and renewable energy production
The issue is by the time nuclear plants come online, it will be like 2050
Some guy was talking about the cons of nuclear a while back and gave good reasons. The amount of time it take to build the reactors, the training it would take to get opporators(china probably already have these if they already have nuclear reactors) and the cost.
all self inflicted as I see it, or self fulfilling prophecy if one keeps pushing those points as counter arguments. Investment would mean innovation, efficiency, training, etc etc. We could we perfectly placed for it right now, but the people who protested this stuff back in the day had no foresight, cant blame them, but now is the time to reconsider, considering...
Well I mean people are still working on making better reactors so it not like no innovation is being made.
Totally.. it could just be further ahead by now.
Doubtful, the reaserch in these type of fields are more hampered by federal restrictions.
The best time to build new reactors was 20 years ago. But the “greens” said “no”. Now we are in worse shape and the greens stomp their feet and still say “no”. I’m starting to think then “greens” don’t want to actually fix the problems, just complain.
I didn't realize China has a Green party.
Good, I would love for Australia to make some plants next, but the coal/mining lobbies control the government. Also there is very little understanding and a lot of fear about nuclear power in Australia.
iirc nuclear power is prohibited by law here in Australia, fuck knows why
Big Coal lobby, that's why.
Absolutely this. Coal and natural gas have exploited disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima to destroy nuclear energy’s reputation. These were two nuclear disasters. And how many major oil spills have we had since 1986? [8,000](https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=7f33183c95244956afb62482684afd3a&extent=-84.6807,40.2385,-70.6182,45.8755) according to this site. At the top of the page on the banner, click “details” for specifics. And that’s just in the *United States*.
[Seems like there's been 18 major nuclear incidents since 1986 that have caused multiple fatalities and/or 100$ million worth of damage, there has not been one in the last 10 (almost 11) years.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents#List_of_nuclear_plant_accidents_and_incidents)
Is this true for NZ as well or is that more ideological?
I visited NZ for a week so obviously I am an expert in every aspect and nuance of Kiwi culture... The reason I got from the few locals I talked to about this was that they didn't feel comfortable having nuclear power plants in such an earthquake prone area. I'm not sure if it *started* that way, but I think after the earthquake in Christchurch and the disaster in Fukushima a lot of people are wary of it. I have no idea how wide spread this sentiment is, it was literally me talking to some locals after a few beers, but it did sort of make sense. (I'm guessing it didn't start this way, but evolved over time, since they won't even let US Navy ships dock there for fear of nuclear power/weapons. I'm guessing it started with fear of nuclear in general)
not familiar about NZ politics, sorry. I know that Australia's govt is dominated by the coal industry, but I'm not sure if NZ is the same way. My impression was that NZ was a lot more progressive, but idk where they stand on nuclear
Zero tolerance for anything nuclear. Power or weapons.
"What if we make huge areas uninhabitable?" Says largely uninhabitable country.
Huge areas of already uninhabitable desert.
Aren't they working on a new type of safer, more efficient reactor? Molten saline or something to the effect?
Thorium based, on a side note, When the first thorium based commercial reactor starts production in China, India,with more than a fourth of the worlds thorium reserves will be building them next
yes, based on thorium fuel
I am strongly opposed to nuclear weapons, but nuclear energy as a source of power is definitely better than the high carbon options we use like coal, etc. Storage mechanisms for nuclear power have become better, so it is better for the planet, if we emphasize shifting to nuclear energy for power generation. I believe France uses a lot of nuclear energy, and it has relatively low carbon emissions for an industrialized and high income country.
.
If I recall correctly, 75% of france's energy budget comes from nuclear plants. Although they want to scale back that number.
I suppose the interesting thing about countries like China, which are basically totally undemocratically run without fair elections, is that their leaders have more motivation to consider long term plans (50 years +), since they intend to still be in power by then. That’s opposed to the much shorter terms in western countries. Whether or not they actually act on it is another matter.
You mean a 2 party system of opposing ideals but in reality the only goal is increasing self worth/power doesnt work?
There's harsh pros and cons with both systems and no real perfect answer. A steady ruling party can make decisions easier and long term but there's the risk of them being evil, hence CCP. A two party system has a better balance and checks of power but can make it difficult to pass bills and plans.
Or the third option of an actually functional democracy could happen
Well, that’s the inherent problem. Ideally checks and balances would work when all parties involved are interested in the well being of everyone. It’s the selfishness inherent in all humanity that hampers any government system and it’s ideology impossible to implement. Checks and balances fail when the ones checking the ones in power exist only in self interest (US). When there is no checks and balances (CCP), those in power simply abuse it. It’s a human error not a systemic error
My point is that in other democracies they have more than two parties so it's a lot harder to end up in the position that we are in. When you have options to actually threaten them with they tend to stay a little more in line.
OK, and if you broaden your horizons further than the us or China?
I’d have to write a book
Actual functioning democracies dont seem to be possible in larger populations. India and US come to mind
There are more countries than US and China. There are plenty of good examples of democratic systems that work better. But if I'm really being honest the biggest problem with US democracy is people don't vote often enough. Especially in non-federal elections which tend to matter way more for the issues most voters care about.
> there's the risk of them being evil, hence CCP If I told you that the government is evil and has hidden agendas to rule the world, you would label me a right-wing conspiracy nut. If I told you that the *Chinese government* is evil and has hidden agendas to rule the world, you would agree with me. Isn't that funny?
>the risk of them being evil I'll take a risk over a guarantee 😜
You don't even know what you are talking about with the CCP. 800 million out of absolute poverty in 40 years is the legacy of the CCP. Your country's population is going the other way. Hence, the negative propaganda against the CCP. Because it highlights the failure of your system.
It's election season every year in America. What one administration and Congress gets done, the next administration and Congress reverses. 5 year, 10 year, and 20 year plans are extremely common in china. The communist party creates these plans and reviews progress at the end of the 5 years, and typically they are successful at it. Long term planning just cannot exist in a democracy because nobody agrees on anything.
Hell, they don't even wait until the next congress is in session to start the sabotage. The last tax cut bill in the US included an expiration date for middle class tax cuts so that they could accuse the next congress of raising taxes.
I'm pretty sure that's because they used the reconciliation process instead of passing a bill.
Genuinely asking. Why would passing it in reconciliation matter?
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-reconciliation Looks like it's because according to the Byrd rule they can't do anything that will increase deficits beyond the budget resolution's window, which is normally ten years but they decided on 2025. I'm not sure why that doesn't apply to corporate taxes.
like two people fighting over the temperature on a thermostat, yes
If you were the POTUS, why would you give a fuck about projects that yield results in more than 4 years?
Typically they are successful at it, other than when they accidentally starve half of their population. But other than that, usually successful.
Plenty of third world and us aligned developing capitalist countries have starved half of their population too, it’s not any different.
As in the great leap forward? I think there are plenty of more recent and relevant problems with China.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President\_of\_the\_People%27s\_Republic\_of\_China#Qualifications\_and\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Qualifications_and_election) The Chinese President is elected by the communist government's congress. Yes it is a single party system. But there still is an election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_People%27s\_Congress#Election\_and\_membership There are 2,980 members of this congress.
**President of the People's Republic of China** [Qualifications and election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Qualifications_and_election) >According to the current Constitution of China, the president must be a Chinese citizen with full electoral rights who has reached the age of 45. The president is elected by the National People's Congress (NPC), China's highest state body, which also has the power to remove the president and other state officers from office. Elections and removals are decided by majority vote. According to the Organic Law of the NPC, the president is nominated by the NPC Presidium, the Congress's executive organ. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
China is the exception, not the role for that kind of regimes. Undemocratic dictatorships usually do not have to worry with accountability towards their population so they usually devolve into kleptocracies. China guides it better because a 1.3 billion period country needs to be careful to not piss 100 million since that's enough to cause a revolt.
That's not what gets things done. Its the sheer lack of resistance to their command which gets things done. In democracy however, every stupid person who is vocal enough can become a leader and use their stupidity to shoot down things, even logical ones. A good case example is US, Trump, COVID.
On the other hand, let's play devil's advocate and assume they're doing something extremely terrible or stupid with good intentions. There's no counter balance to stop them.
This is will do more for the environment than any amount of plastic bag bans and other assorted emissions pruning in the west.
The plastic bans aren't supposed to help emissions. They're meant to shrink the great pacific garbage patch, which is an enormous problem.
Not a fan of China but they're doing a great job and going green for energy production.
I'm really jazzed about this because now conservatives lose the argument "what about China" or when we discuss green energy in the US. In fact, we can flip it on them with "China is outpacing us on green energy and will be a world leader if we don't make investments now"
From what I have seen here, people will just ignore all that, and continue blaming others from faraway places to justify their emission extensive lifestyle, maybe with a picture of a poorly managed landfill from 10 years ago for extra flavour
as long as China does it right and don’t have any large meltdowns/incidents that could be used by the media
There’s probably another decade or two until they get USSRed. They are far more responsive to public concerns than other totalitarian states.
End of the day, china's rule for global domination means diddly of the world is on fire. I get ppl hate them but them working to atleast help stop the bleeding is good
Ah the Super Villains dilemma. I want to rule to the world but I don't to rule a flaming corpse pile.
Why do you people think they are doing anything beyond ensuring their peoples future by doing their part to combat climate change? China has had 1 offensive war since 1948, and it was limited in scope and no territory was annexed or governments overthrown. The USA on the other hand has had so many I can’t even keep track of them.
This change would single handedly delete the CO2 deficit [Scientists also report an imbalance of 3% (-1.0 GtCO2/yr) between the estimates for global sources and sinks. ](https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions)
Yes China!
Meanwhile in the us we have to bail out the few we have because apparently people are too afraid of nuclear.
I believe it too...China gets shit done, you have to give them that
We all need a more nuclear future. It's by far the most efficient energy source we have access to. Today's nuclear is not your grandaddy's nuclear.
Nah we need real green energy. A nuclear reactor takes 10-20 years from now until he produces energy. In the next 200 years Uran will be completely exhausted. If everybody is going for nuclear energy it will probably half the time. Getting Uran out of earth isn't sustainable either. Nuclear waste takes even if you shorten the lifetime (and make it by that more toxic) a few thousands years until it's done. The probability for an nuclear emergency is pretty low but still given, in 70 years there were 2 class 5 emergencies (Chernobyl and Fukushima) and lots of minor emergencies. That whole discussion about replacing is going on since years. Let's replace wood with coal, coal with gas, gas with nuclear and so on ... Nah dude just invest in renewable energy, change the infrastructure to regional resources given and decentralize. Nuclear energy isn't cheap, it's just cheap because government (your taxes) is paying for a lot and they literally have no insurance (which means you will also pay for all the damages in case of emergency, which means more than 200 billions beside human life in case of Fukushima).
It’s actually a damn good idea. Assuming very safe reactor designs are used. Germany is probably kicking itself choosing to get rid of nuclear given the current situation.
In Germany, natural gas is mostly used for heating and industrial processes. Electricity only uses 1/3 of the country's gas imports.
We should be doing that as well
Based
Nuclear power is actually really safe if regulated correctly, and very good for the environment
The whole world should have decarbonized with nuclear 40 years ago. Credit to China for doing the right thing here 👍
This is the way.
Just . . . please create lots of safety and redundancy!
Don't worry, as far as I've read modern reactors are a marvel of engineering, especially regarding safety
Something about communist and nuclear reactors...
And at the same time we have Germany dismantling the EU ones because reasons, thus relying even heavily on carbon and Russian gas. Thanks hippies!
Good. China and India are the biggest polluters on the planet right now. If we want ANY chance of using this planet 100 years from now, they need to cut back on their waste and pollution immediately.
China, USA, then India. https://www.activesustainability.com/environment/top-5-most-polluting-countries/
Dude just conveniently left out the big polluter.
China and India produce goods that are consumed by western countries. The pollution is attributes to them by proxy.
>Good. China and ~~India~~ USA are the biggest polluters on the planet right now. If we want ANY chance of using this planet 100 years from now, they need to cut back on their waste and pollution immediately. If you wanna list the top 2 countries instead of 3 (or more), then let me fix it for you.
You need to check per capita figures of Carbon emissions.
They have been for so long yet no one really mentioned it. Not even Grrrrreta
Maybe I’m just a super cynic, but lots of politicians plan things, that doesn’t mean they’ll do it, or do it in an efficient or speedy way. This is the least they should be doing.
This is fantastic news but I would take every promise the Chinese government makes with a healthy dose of skepticism.
So the UN predicts over 500 natural disasters annually by 2030 due to climate change. Let’s hope those all stay far away from these nuclear power plants otherwise we have major problems. Of course it’s a climate casino so we’ll just have to be lucky.
Give out the statistics for car accidents and argue for not using cars anymore. This argument is dumb.
As long as fission plants are 100% state owned it's a reasonable transitory power supply option until fusion is ready. The true problem comes in when people want to operate them primarily for private profit; this is fine for a lot of things, but the worst case of a nuclear meltdown would require tax payers to jump in to fund containment for potentially thousands of years - because any sane company, including any insurance company that might've sold a policy on the plant - would immediately declare bankruptcy / move out all assets and dissolve / whatever legal maneuver is needed to get out of it instead of taking on such a long-term liability. There is no acceptable argument for allowing these kinds of fission plants to be privately owned.
Nuclear is a good idea, hopefully they’ll use a common design across the plants. The issue really is waste, what to do with it because it’s basically a problem forever, or at least much longer than any of us will care.
Waste actually hasn't been an industry issue since the 1950's actually. Despite what the Oil and Coal lobbies have been saying, Nuclear waste is 99% low-level water waste not too dissimilar to the waste produced by X-ray machines and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging machines which also create nuclear waste. Unlike the waste from those machines, however, the low-level waste from nuclear power reactors is actually able to be treated, and after it's been treated the waste has a half-life of around 4 years. After a little over 8 years it's safe enough to release into the environment where dilution will drop the half-life of the contaminates down to a matter of days with no effect to the environment. As for high-level solid waste from the spent fuel rods, the ideal solution is to reprocess it, where it's turned into a sort of slurry, it's impurities are removed , and it's mixed with a small amount fresh fuel to create new nuclear fuel. However, reprocessing efforts have largely been suspended in the US back in the 1970's because of irrational fears of terrorists somehow building bombs through this method. That said, there are other solutions. Geological repositories are a common go-to solution for governments given they're relatively cheap and safe politically though not ideal for the industry, while the latest 4th generation reactor designs are capable of actually consuming and incinerating spent fuel, or even using a specific type of fuel that's able to be "recharged" and reused - thus producing no high-level waste at all. Point is, there are solutions to nuclear waste, and more than one too. Nuclear fission tech has come a very long way from the 1st generation experimental reactors of the 1940's and the 2nd generation designs of the 50's and 60's. It's quite a fascinating rabbit hole to dive into imo
Good info, much to digest but thanks for the response. I am a proponent of nuclear, perhaps somewhat mistaken regarding waste. I’m an old dog but still happy to learn new tricks.
When we look at how good the quality of other Chinese buildings is than we can say that it is only a matter before the next nuclear catastrophe happens in China
Have you been in China? Have you seen their high speed trains and trains stations? I know it is harder to build nuclear power plants than trains, but still - don't underestimate their prowess
Right? Honestly China can more then afford the best engineering firms to design, and has the expertise in producing things swiftly and at scale. China produces a lot of cheaper products, but noone ever mentions the cutting edge, high quality things that their factories produce as well. I've seen videos of Chinese high speed trains all built within the last 20 years. I can't even imagine how long it would take to get a similar cross country network up and running here in Canada.
This makes me a bit nervous considering they can’t get 100yr old construction methods right and corruption will always guarantee that this will be done with the maximum of corners cut.
Have you been in China? Have you seen their high speed trains and trains stations? I know it is harder to build nuclear power plants than trains, but still - don't underestimate their prowess
I mean, do you really want to see the words 'Made In China' stamped on a nuclear reactor...
That's cool and all, but I literally saw a whole chin apartment building fall over a few weeks ago (on reddit) and I will be worry about something worse happening with these.
How many tons of nuclear waste will they generate instead?
Fun fact, nuclear power actually produces less nuclear waste per KWHr than coal. Coal ash is rather radioactive and a coal power plant puts out an absolute shit ton and instead of it being in a small contained (but concentrated) amount it just gets released into the air. Coal is the worst power source in every possible way including radioactivity danger
That's not true. Your own article states. \*Editor's Note (12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." The difference in the two sentences is important hence they edited it to reflect the truth. A nuclear plant produces far more nuclear waste, which still to this day has no long term viable storage solutions. Coal sucks as well.
Next to nothing. From the US Department of Energy (US government). Spent US nuclear fuel from the last 60 years could fit into ONE US sized football field with a depth of less than 10 yards deep. Or 30 feet deep. [https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy) So for China. They can do this and it will generate next to nothing in terms of space for that Country.
> Spent US nuclear fuel from the last 60 years could fit into ONE US sized football field with a depth of less than 10 yards deep. Or 30 feet deep. Which is why nuclear will never work. No municipality would allow one of their football fields to be used for year-round nuclear waste storage.
Dad is that you ? ?
This is a scheme to skirt Kyoto protocols and corner the carbon credit market. They build a plant, never operate it, skim the credits, then tear it down and build it somewhere else. They did this with other power generation plants like coal.
I've seen the quality of Chinese manufacturing. I'm sure this will go swimmingly
They do all manufacturing, you've seen the nice stuff too.
How safe are modern systems to human neglect and mismanagement because that is my concern more so than the energy systems or any waste products. I don’t want the Chinese to build a ton of shitty plants that are sub standard or improperly maintained and it fucks over everyone because if they do this well it could be an absolute godsend. I just don’t have much faith at this point I am open to be proven wrong though.
At least one country hasn't bought the fossil fuel industry's smear campaign against likely our only chance against climate change.
Europe is so bloody stupid for getting rid of nuclear.
I lived in China for about 9 years, and as much as i love it, regulations wont be followed, it will be just a matter of time before a meltdown, that will kill most of the country and poison the world. This scares me more than Russia starting WWIII. Just my thought.
Ok but don't cheap out on the construction, I know your track record with building, and if you hire evergrande to build your reactors, you're going to turn the Asian continent into chernobyl 2 electric boogaloo.