China is building nuclear reactors faster than any other country

https://www.economist.com/china/2023/11/30/china-is-building-nuclear-reactors-faster-than-any-other-country

85 104 3 years ago

hunglee2• 3 years ago

how can US slow down China's nuclear build out - what export controls could be applied? Also I believe that the Hualong One reactor design is based on Westinghouse IP, which might give legal / financial instrument to help fslow down China's rise

nobodyandproud• 3 years ago

Instead of slowing down China, we should consider this a wake-up call.

Instead of lazily pointing out that nuclear is “expensive”, have an honest conversation on the extraordinarily high hurdles we put in 50+ years ago.

Right now even a good-faith conversation amongst experts across different industries seems impossible

systemvoltage• 3 years ago

It’s schizophrenic to see that we are realizing the problem of huge amounts of regulations and unchecked bureaucracy, and then almost all solutions on HN, no matter the topic, screams “More regulations!”.

Regulations is a huge topic with lots of nuances, effectiveness and various domains; but I just see every thread on HN constantly and incessantly drumming for more Gov intervention. Switch to another thread and first knee jerk reaction, often the top voted comment is about regulations.

I’m not saying at all about getting rid of regulations. They are absolutely necessary but maybe we should be a little more careful about putting them in place?

0xDEF• 3 years ago

Also I believe that the Hualong One reactor design is based on Westinghouse IP

You make it sound like they stole it but they legally bought it and are building the new nuclear plants in collaboration with Westinghouse.

lithos• 3 years ago

The counterpoint is that pointing out to boomers that Poland and China are multiple decades ahead of us in nuclear technology, tends to make them "hungry" to invest in the technology. (They live in a thoughtset that America Exceptionalism must be real)

headsupernova• 3 years ago

Incomprehensible to want to slow china on this front... climate collapse doesn't stop at country borders.

foverzar2• 3 years ago

Why would you do that?

This is such a weirdly common attitude to US competitors in a western bubble, but I can't figure what motivates so many people to act like such sore losers.

No wonder things like BRICS start popping out. People on the receiving end will justly recognize this attitude as evil.

berserk10102• 3 years ago

OP is a CCP sympathizer who is being sarcastic.

OP should probably ask (but they won't), how can US slow down China's help to Russia's terrible war on Ukraine, or theft of valuable IP in the free world, or increased aggression against Taiwan and Philippines

ZeroGravitas4• 3 years ago

China is to phase out coal and become carbon neutral by 2060, it will need an energy source that can help it reliably meet baseload demand (the minimum level of power required to keep things running). Wind and solar are less suited to this, as they depend on the co-operation of nature. But nuclear fits the bill.

In any scenario, renewables are going to do more of the heavy lifting in displacing coal in China. This framing seems designed to avoid this reality.

When it comes to energy generated, China’s nuclear stations outperform today’s installed solar capacity (though not wind).

Again, I could argue about the framing here, but their underlying facts are suspect too.

I wonder what their source is, as I believe both wind and solar are above nuclear production as of 2022 and growing at a faster rate.

solar: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-share-energy?tab=ch...

wind:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/wind-share-energy?tab=cha...

solar and wind:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-primary-energy-f...

nuclear:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-primary-energy?ta...

second source that agrees:

https://ember-climate.org/countries-and-regions/countries/ch...

Looking forward here's the IEA on the plan for Chinese carbon neutrality by 2060:

Renewables-based generation, mainly wind and solar PV, increases seven-fold between 2020 and 2060, accounting for almost 80% of generation by then. By contrast, the share of coal drops from over 60% to just 5%, and unabated coal-based generation stops in 2050.

https://www.iea.org/reports/an-energy-sector-roadmap-to-carb...

Arnt6• 3 years ago

https://nitter.net/CleanPowerDave/status/1729784959890506150... says China will likely install 240GW of solar this year, which is about 90% of what the entire world installed last year.

I agree that the piece sounds as if it's trying not to mention renewables.

ZeroGravitas4• 3 years ago

The update to the old IEA misprediction of solar graph found in that thread is illustrative:

https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FGADZCdnWEAA6XhK.jpg

matthewdgreen2• 3 years ago

They built more solar and wind in the first nine months of this year than the total future generation of their whole reactor fleet under construction. And with battery storage manufacturing rates/cost also on a similar (albeit earlier) exponential curve, it’s hard to see the economic case for nuclear 20-30 years from now.

dahfizz• 3 years ago

Literally the first sentence of the article:

To wean their country off imported oil and gas, and in the hope of retiring dirty coal-fired power stations, China’s leaders have poured money into wind and solar energy.

Its silly that an article about nuclear can't just exist. Even though it does discuss renewables, all the comments here are just "wut about solar"

defrost3• 3 years ago

Regardless of what The Economist has to say the stated China objective (which they have to hold to) is a nuclear (20%) renewable (805) future .. which makes sense in their planning.

https://www.iea.org/countries/china

Gives the International Energy Agency overview of the China mix and history 1990 - 2020, in recent years nuclear and wind|solar have increased together from bugger all to roughly similar proportions when compared to the overbearing coal + gas + oil consumption.

IIRC IEA charges for the most recent reports with most up to date tabulations along with a handful of teaser stuff that's up to date.

Arnt6• 3 years ago

Why does China have to hold to those plans?

It seems to me that the government there has an unusual ability to change its policy abruptly.

thomastjeffery• 3 years ago

I know it's not your fault, but why in the hell do they have a number of TJ right next to a number of TWh?

God forbid we compare numbers that are right next to each other.

ikesau• 3 years ago

Here's another useful view that shows the breakdown in a stacked area chart: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...

scotty79• 3 years ago

China even built a thorium molten salts reactor recently. If this pans out they'll leapfrog the usual nuclear.

grooverider• 3 years ago

I'm super stoked on this technology development.

thelastgallon3• 3 years ago

Nuclear, solar and wind are the cleanest and safest forms of energy. The metric to use is deaths/TWH: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

Kon5ole7• 3 years ago

Nuclear, solar and wind are the cleanest and safest forms of energy. The metric to use is deaths/TWH

This common flawed claim ignores the metric "How much effort is required to keep the number of deaths low?" which is an essential part of it.

Nuclear is not safe. It is just kept from harming us by a large crew of skilled people and billions of dollars' worth of safety measures.

Solar and wind have no such requirements, so the comparison is a bit like saying that the safest tools are a brush, a broom and a gun.

johnsmithson• 3 years ago

I for one am worries by China's nuclear reactors, considering the competency crisis and China favouring speed over safety.

thelastgallon3• 3 years ago

billions of dollars' worth of safety measures.

This is of the order of fractions of pennies when we compare to fossil fuel subsidies. Fossil fuels to the tune of $7 trillion/year[1] and cause 10 million deaths/year.

Air Pollution Kills 10 Million People a Year. Why Do We Accept That as Normal? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environment/air-p...

large crew of skilled people

If we stop subsidizing fossil fuels, then the energy markets will be fair, nuclear will win (or at least a major play along with solar and wind) and there will be a ton of skilled workforce. We didn't have a skilled javascript workforce 2 decades ago, now we have millions.

[1] https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuel-subsidies-2022

belorn2• 3 years ago

"How much effort is required to keep the number of deaths low?"

The first answer to that is to not build a large chimney on the power plant and release all the waste by releasing it into the air. At that point we are now safer than all fossil fuel power plants and can impose a full ban on all use of fossil fuel plants in the power grid. Releasing toxic waste into the environment and into the air must be made illegal.

The second requirement is to do simple repairs and maintenance of buildings. Here we can look at hydro power and see how they often fail at preventing flooding. The effort must be high enough that it can handle bad weather. Anything less should be illegal and severely punished.

So the level of efforts need to be at least at that minimum. We could demand even more, but I am afraid a majority of people would object if we banned all fossil fuel, all hydro, and all nuclear from the grid.

goblin892• 3 years ago

There is no need to worry of nuclear disasters in China, as you will most certainly not hear about it when they happen (even if you live in China). You can’t worry about what you don’t know, and after all everyone eventually dies of cancer…

hpb42• 3 years ago

billions of dollars' worth of safety measures

Is this a bad thing? Investing a lot into safety measures to avoid catastrophes seems better than investing significantly less because we assume is safe.

Could you elaborate on why this investment is an argument against nuclear?

I once talked to people that worked at Angra Nuclear Power Plant in Brazil and they said the real danger is actually the spent nuclear fuel. The power plant itself is safe due to many redundant safety measures, continuous tests and monitoring. I don't have a source for this, and don't take my words for absolute truth, I'm not an expert in the subject.

kept from harming us by a large crew of skilled people

I'm glad to hear people working with nuclear are skilled ;) I assume people working in solar/wind/hydro are also skilled at their craft. And I'm sure you didn't imply that, maybe the phrasing wasn't the best?

sterlind2• 3 years ago

the safest form of travel is flying. even though you're strapping people into a pressurized metal tube next to 50 tons of jet fuel and hurtling them at hundreds of miles per hour through the elements, governed by a complex web of thousands of safety-critical systems controlled by a pair of humans. it's rather remarkable.

anonuser123456• 3 years ago

Power is safety critical. People die in the winter and summer without power. Solar and wind cannot deliver reliable power, particularly during critical emergency weather situations.

So comparing solar and nuclear is a bit like saying a broom is safer to the user than a gun, while ignoring the user is in a gunfight.

syndicatedjelly2• 3 years ago

Nuclear should not be in the same category as wind and solar. It's byproducts are the most toxic elements in the known universe, it's input fuels can be used as a cover for rogue nations to produce the most dangerous weapons in the world, and when things go wrong, failed reactors destroy communities and make them uninhabitable for hundreds of years. Solar and wind, including their input materials, do not even come close to that level of potential destruction in their worst case scenarios.

Making an a posteriori argument that nuclear is safer is just sticking your head in the sand to the potential harms. Fukushima was hardly over 10 years ago...

bluefirebrand2• 3 years ago

If you want to convince people that nuclear is dangerous, Fukushima is a terrible example.

Not one person died during the actual meltdown.

Only one death is directly tied to cancer caused by radiation from the disaster.

A bit over 2000 deaths are assigned as being caused or related to the evacuation.

People already live in the evacuation zone again, it's not "irradiated and unliveable for hundreds of years" or whatever. That's fear mongering nonsense.

Here's the thing: every source of energy contains risk.

Solar and Wind are never going to be reliable enough to produce a baseload. If we switch 100% to unreliable but safe energy production like Solar and Wind, then the risk becomes "Our power goes out in the dead of winter and we freeze to death" or "our power goes out during a heatwave and our AC fails so the heat kills us"

Or maybe we need to store all of this in batteries. But storing Potential Energy is always risky, batteries can explode or start incredibly dangerous fires, including toxic fumes. Even something simple like pumping water up a hill as energy storage comes with risk. Or cutting down a tree to burn for fuel, the tree could fall on someone.

wkat42422• 3 years ago

Deaths aren't the only metric to consider. There's also pollution.

Chernobyl for example left a huge area uninhabitable. And it's still a mess. When the Russians kicked up dust in there with their tanks recently it caused measurable radiation in a much wider area.

thelastgallon3• 3 years ago

Air Pollution Kills 10 Million People a Year[1]. This is all from fossil fuels. What are the numbers for nuclear?

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environment/air-p...

tnel77• 3 years ago

This is always the rebuttal. No mention of the large number of deaths from fossil fuel pollution. It’s just so frustrating to see people against nuclear for no rational reason.

christkv• 3 years ago

China is aggressively building more nuclear weapons and these breeder reactors will be key to produce the weapons material needed.

bastawhiz• 3 years ago

Do you have a source for this?

delecti• 3 years ago

It's recently been in the news that China is substantially increasing the size of their nuclear arsenal. I can't substantiate the GP's claim that the weapons and reactors are connected, but it's a reasonable prediction.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207156597/new-pentagon-repor...

jandrewrogers• 3 years ago

Here is a Reuters source. China has also been building delivery systems along with those warheads.

https://www.reuters.com/world/chinas-nuclear-arsenal-more-th...

meroes2• 3 years ago

Careful last time I brought this up on HN I was downvoted. Watch Dark Circle HN’ers.

berserk10102• 3 years ago

there are less of those on HN these days, most of these opportunistic hacks finally realized that China is collapsing economically and abandoned ship

Moldoteck• 3 years ago

You were downvoted because it's meaningless affirmation. They already do have enough nukes. If just two countries would engage in such a war, it's basically the end for modern human era. Both China and US do have abt 500 nukes. Russia is estimated to have more than 1k(debatable but still). If china would get 500 more nukes, do you think 500 US rockets would not be enough to wipe China from existence? I bet 100 is more than enough. So all this anti breeding reactors/anti reprocessing propaganda is pure bs

Ekaros• 3 years ago

Good for them, every country should have effective arsenal of nuclear weapons to use in defence.

missedthecue• 3 years ago

The rare pro nuclear-proliferation opinion. Bold. I like it.

tomatotomato37• 3 years ago

And? They've had enough to guarantee a retaliation strike for awhile now, any extra is just wasted resources on dick-waving

matthewfelgate• 3 years ago

The rest of the world should be building more nuclear plants.

bryanlarsen• 3 years ago

China was planning on building 30 nuclear reactors a year. Instead they're building less than 3 a year.

jillesvangurp• 3 years ago

Those plans have been adapted to the new reality that their wind and solar industry is enormously successful and has grown much faster than anticipated even a few short years ago. And its a market they dominate. At this point there's no economical need to build a lot of more expensive nuclear plants. Another issue in China is that their economy is struggling a bit lately and that it issues with a lot of debt that is at risk of defaulting. Adding to that problem with a lot of economically challenged nuclear plants is not helpful so, they are putting on the brakes a little bit. Not all the way.

r00fus• 3 years ago

How many does the US build a year? 3/year would be hailed as a massive success here - and it should be hailed likewise for China.

nnurmanov• 3 years ago

China spans almost 5 timezones, they could create chain of solar panels and extend solar day by additional 5 hours

magicpin• 3 years ago

Not according to china.

ben_w4• 3 years ago

The country can span five time zones[0] geographically while still legally being only one.

[0] I'd only count it as four; the difference is a fencepost error IMO.

rpigab• 3 years ago

Not accounting loss in transmission lines over long distances and cost of building even-higher voltage lines than those already used in the normal grid that's optimized to serve consumers closest to power stations, else Africa would be powering most of Europe.

ZeroGravitas4• 3 years ago

China already has country spanning HVDC and UHVDC to bring hydro and coal to the cities in other regions that need it.

ianburrell• 3 years ago

Transmission losses with HVDC lines are small, 3.5% per 1000km. China are experts in ultra-high-voltage transmission lines. And are building a ton of solar plants in the western deserts.

There are proposals to install solar panels in North Africa and run HVDC lines to Europe. There was one recently about running a line all the way to Britain from Morocco.

ben_w4• 3 years ago

Even if you made a bog standard HVDC cable and wrapped it all the way around the planet[0], the transmission losses are only 60% or so, which is smaller than the price difference between PV (or wind) and nuclear.

[0] don't do that, the current cables are optimised for the current transmission distances, so it's simultaneously easy (wider cables have less resistance) and harder (you need to care about earthquakes) to make a different design better suited for global scale

Arubis• 3 years ago

Good for them! We all share the same atmosphere.

ortusdux• 3 years ago

Agreed. I do think the Olympics should get some credit for China's focus on air quality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_and_controversies_at_...

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/china-got-blue-s...

blackoil• 3 years ago

China has moved from 20% renewable + nuclear in 2008 to 33% in 2021.

fcanesin• 3 years ago

I believe it is also building dams, ports, bridges, tunnels, metro lines, high-speed trains and highways faster than any other country.

JudasGoat• 3 years ago

https://archive.ph/urGB5

China is building nuclear reactors faster than any other country

Related Stories