6 ms·

China to the Rescue of Nuclear Power?

30 points by spenrose 7y ago

spenrose 7y ago
"Officially China still sees nuclear power as a must-have. But unofficially, the technology is on a death watch. Experts, including some with links to the government, see China's nuclear sector succumbing to the same problems affecting the West: the technology is too expensive, and the public doesn't want it."
- The_rationalist 7y ago
  The technology is too expensive is utter nonsense. Nuclear is maybe the most cost effective energy source humanity has, France win tons of money by selling exceeding energy production to e.g germany.
  - spenrose 7y ago
    This thread has multiple links to nuclear professionals' on-the-record statements that cost is a problem: https://twitter.com/sampenrose/status/1162772916125126656 https://twitter.com/sampenrose/status/1162772916125126656
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      My answer about the economics of nuclear people is if it were as cheap as it's boosters say there is absolutely no way a bunch of dirty hippies would have able to stand in it's way. There was a big fight in California over PG&E's plan to build two dozen reactors. The dirty hippies won based on economics. Later off the record PG&E executives admitted the company had been saved from certain bankruptcy. The bad economics isn't a new problem. Washington Public Power Supply System planned to build five nuclear reactors in the 1970's. They managed to finish one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNP-3_and_WNP-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNP-3_and_WNP-5 It seems to me nuke plants only get finished when corners are cut or everything goes to plan. If there are any problems at all the costs and issues spiral out of control. That says to me that these things are barely within our industrial capabilities to build.
    - The_rationalist 7y ago
      I just spent the day reading about the economics of nuclear. Long answer short: Nuclear still is cost competitive except on countries which have direct fossil reserves. Nuclear is cost competitive but is an ultra long term investment (60/100 years lifespan for a power plant) And the construction cost is huge. A fascinating thing to note is that today New power plants cost between 4000 and 5000 $ per KWe. As science and experience improve you would expect like everywhere else, for prices to go down. But it's the reverse, in 1960s power plants had a cost of 1500$ per KWe!!! This is sad and mostly explained by overengeenered security specifications. If we could make again such efficiency today, nuclear would be by FAR the cheapest energy source. Still, Chinese and South Korea achieve 3000$ per KWe efficiency (making it for them the cheapest energy source by a significant amount) And 2 new promising reactor designs target sub 2500$ per KWe. Among future reactor designs, they can have some of those advantages: Less or no wastes. Guaranted safety (auto shutdown by design) Ability to desalinate water or produce hydrogen for free Ability to use thorium making nuclear almost a renewable energy source (enough for 2000 years of energy supply for all humanity) And potential costs savings: Less employee (700 per power plant is a valid number today) More efficiency: from 33% to 45% Source for many things: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-a...
      - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
        > Long answer short: Nuclear still is cost competitive except on countries which have direct fossil reserves. That doesn't make sense: Countries that have reserves can sell them at the exact price that countries without pay. The comparison with nuclear cannot logically be different for those two cases.
        Armisael16 7y ago
        Transport costs drive up the price for non-producing buyers. Also, producer reduce supply when they use their own product, which pushes prices up and reduces the difference in costs for the fuel (non-producers also drive up the price a when they buy, but that doesn’t help them). I doubt either of those effects is particularly significant, but they aren’t nothing.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >"Nuclear is maybe the most cost effective energy source humanity has, France win tons of money by selling exceeding energy production" With that statement in mind, could you explain the economics of Hinkley C? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
spenrose 7y ago
My tweestorm discussing this topic, with citations: https://twitter.com/sampenrose/status/1162772916125126656 https://twitter.com/sampenrose/status/1162772916125126656
bassman9000 7y ago
Interesting none of the MSR efforts were mentioned https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542526/china-details-next-gen-nuclear-reactor-program/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542526/china-details-next... In all, there are 700 nuclear engineers working on the molten-salt reactor at SINAP, Xu said, a number that dwarfs other advanced-reactor research programs around the world https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-billion-on-molten-salt-nuclear-reactors-for-faster-aircraft-carriers-and-in-flying-drones.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-b... China will spend 22 billion yuan (US$3.3 billion) on two prototype molten salt nuclear reactors. But, of course The magazine of the global anti-nuclear community.
- spenrose 7y ago
  The article says China's deployment plans are being derailed by cost and popular attitudes towards nuclear. The cost of new tech in turn is mostly driven by the chicken-and-egg problem of deployment. So you have to solve deployment, which means you have to change attitudes.
  - bassman9000 7y ago
    And to start doing so, you develop passively-safe technologies (walk away), where, by design, Chernobils can't happen.
    - The_rationalist 7y ago
      Chernobyl couldn't happen on today plants anyway. It was a succession of ridiculous human errors, where e.g while stress testing the reactor, they disabled the automatic recovery system. Power plants are now using computers and they wouldn't allow such human stupidity.
      - bassman9000 7y ago
        Thus the passive/walk away. Three Mile Island was a much better Western design, and still shit happened, although with a fraction of the consequences. Fukishima, same. I don't want a computer to be the failsafe. Computers fail. I want safe systems by design. Like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAI1zVH5ir8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAI1zVH5ir8
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zazagura 7y ago
Fukushima destroyed nuclear energy. If the Japanese, with their image of professionalism, smartness, ultra advanced technology, and total dedication to their job failed so spectacularly to manage a plant, nobody will believe any safety promise anymore, at least in places where people are asked about it (ie: not China) Now add the Chernobyl TV series on top, it will be replayed and memefied everywhere a plant is proposed. Of course, this being HN, I welcome the incomming ban.
- profunctor 7y ago
  But nobody dies from the Fukuushima disaster. And plants are getting safer. and many places are safe from earthquake, tsunami combos.
  - woodandsteel 7y ago
    True, no one died, but it was immensely expensive. And that is important because one of the main selling points for nuclear is that it is supposed to produce electricity cheaper than any other source.
    - andyfleming 7y ago
      I think while cost savings is a potential benefit, nuclear’s primary appeal might be shifting more towards environmental impact.
      - JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
        “The Environmental Impact of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Disaster“ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/dong1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/dong1/
- arcticfox 7y ago
  Why would you get banned for that?
rayiner 7y ago
If China beats us to cheap nuclear power, the American era will be over. You can’t compete, economically or militarily, with cheap abundant renewable power with wind farms and conservation.
sunkenvicar 7y ago
Why build Gen 3 plants when they are on the cusp of commercializing Gen 4?
tomohawk 7y ago
Hopefully no-one will believe that the same government that built this disaster waiting to happen: https://www.theepochtimes.com/experts-warn-of-chinas-three-gorges-dam-demise_2994235.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/experts-warn-of-chinas-three-g... will be believable.
mrnobody_67 7y ago
The Simpsons destroyed public perception of nuclear. Homer Simpson as the safety inspector, green slime, and the three eye fish....
aussiegreenie 7y ago
China the future of nuclear power, the same country that has not started a new project in years and ALL current projects are at least 50% - 100% behind schedule.

30 points by spenrose 7y ago

"Officially China still sees nuclear power as a must-have. But unofficially, the technology is on a death watch. Experts, including some with links to the government, see China's nuclear sector succumbing to the same problems affecting the West: the technology is too expensive, and the public doesn't want it."

The_rationalist 7y ago
The technology is too expensive is utter nonsense. Nuclear is maybe the most cost effective energy source humanity has, France win tons of money by selling exceeding energy production to e.g germany.
- spenrose 7y ago
  This thread has multiple links to nuclear professionals' on-the-record statements that cost is a problem: https://twitter.com/sampenrose/status/1162772916125126656 https://twitter.com/sampenrose/status/1162772916125126656
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    My answer about the economics of nuclear people is if it were as cheap as it's boosters say there is absolutely no way a bunch of dirty hippies would have able to stand in it's way. There was a big fight in California over PG&E's plan to build two dozen reactors. The dirty hippies won based on economics. Later off the record PG&E executives admitted the company had been saved from certain bankruptcy. The bad economics isn't a new problem. Washington Public Power Supply System planned to build five nuclear reactors in the 1970's. They managed to finish one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNP-3_and_WNP-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNP-3_and_WNP-5 It seems to me nuke plants only get finished when corners are cut or everything goes to plan. If there are any problems at all the costs and issues spiral out of control. That says to me that these things are barely within our industrial capabilities to build.
  - The_rationalist 7y ago
    I just spent the day reading about the economics of nuclear. Long answer short: Nuclear still is cost competitive except on countries which have direct fossil reserves. Nuclear is cost competitive but is an ultra long term investment (60/100 years lifespan for a power plant) And the construction cost is huge. A fascinating thing to note is that today New power plants cost between 4000 and 5000 $ per KWe. As science and experience improve you would expect like everywhere else, for prices to go down. But it's the reverse, in 1960s power plants had a cost of 1500$ per KWe!!! This is sad and mostly explained by overengeenered security specifications. If we could make again such efficiency today, nuclear would be by FAR the cheapest energy source. Still, Chinese and South Korea achieve 3000$ per KWe efficiency (making it for them the cheapest energy source by a significant amount) And 2 new promising reactor designs target sub 2500$ per KWe. Among future reactor designs, they can have some of those advantages: Less or no wastes. Guaranted safety (auto shutdown by design) Ability to desalinate water or produce hydrogen for free Ability to use thorium making nuclear almost a renewable energy source (enough for 2000 years of energy supply for all humanity) And potential costs savings: Less employee (700 per power plant is a valid number today) More efficiency: from 33% to 45% Source for many things: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-a...
    - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
      > Long answer short: Nuclear still is cost competitive except on countries which have direct fossil reserves. That doesn't make sense: Countries that have reserves can sell them at the exact price that countries without pay. The comparison with nuclear cannot logically be different for those two cases.
      - Armisael16 7y ago
        Transport costs drive up the price for non-producing buyers. Also, producer reduce supply when they use their own product, which pushes prices up and reduces the difference in costs for the fuel (non-producers also drive up the price a when they buy, but that doesn’t help them). I doubt either of those effects is particularly significant, but they aren’t nothing.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >"Nuclear is maybe the most cost effective energy source humanity has, France win tons of money by selling exceeding energy production" With that statement in mind, could you explain the economics of Hinkley C? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...

spenrose 7y ago

My tweestorm discussing this topic, with citations: https://twitter.com/sampenrose/status/1162772916125126656 https://twitter.com/sampenrose/status/1162772916125126656

bassman9000 7y ago

Interesting none of the MSR efforts were mentioned https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542526/china-details-next-gen-nuclear-reactor-program/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542526/china-details-next... In all, there are 700 nuclear engineers working on the molten-salt reactor at SINAP, Xu said, a number that dwarfs other advanced-reactor research programs around the world https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-billion-on-molten-salt-nuclear-reactors-for-faster-aircraft-carriers-and-in-flying-drones.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-b... China will spend 22 billion yuan (US$3.3 billion) on two prototype molten salt nuclear reactors. But, of course The magazine of the global anti-nuclear community.

spenrose 7y ago
The article says China's deployment plans are being derailed by cost and popular attitudes towards nuclear. The cost of new tech in turn is mostly driven by the chicken-and-egg problem of deployment. So you have to solve deployment, which means you have to change attitudes.
- bassman9000 7y ago
  And to start doing so, you develop passively-safe technologies (walk away), where, by design, Chernobils can't happen.
  - The_rationalist 7y ago
    Chernobyl couldn't happen on today plants anyway. It was a succession of ridiculous human errors, where e.g while stress testing the reactor, they disabled the automatic recovery system. Power plants are now using computers and they wouldn't allow such human stupidity.
    - bassman9000 7y ago
      Thus the passive/walk away. Three Mile Island was a much better Western design, and still shit happened, although with a fraction of the consequences. Fukishima, same. I don't want a computer to be the failsafe. Computers fail. I want safe systems by design. Like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAI1zVH5ir8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAI1zVH5ir8

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

zazagura 7y ago

Fukushima destroyed nuclear energy. If the Japanese, with their image of professionalism, smartness, ultra advanced technology, and total dedication to their job failed so spectacularly to manage a plant, nobody will believe any safety promise anymore, at least in places where people are asked about it (ie: not China) Now add the Chernobyl TV series on top, it will be replayed and memefied everywhere a plant is proposed. Of course, this being HN, I welcome the incomming ban.

profunctor 7y ago
But nobody dies from the Fukuushima disaster. And plants are getting safer. and many places are safe from earthquake, tsunami combos.
- woodandsteel 7y ago
  True, no one died, but it was immensely expensive. And that is important because one of the main selling points for nuclear is that it is supposed to produce electricity cheaper than any other source.
  - andyfleming 7y ago
    I think while cost savings is a potential benefit, nuclear’s primary appeal might be shifting more towards environmental impact.
    - JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
      “The Environmental Impact of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Disaster“ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/dong1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/dong1/
arcticfox 7y ago
Why would you get banned for that?

rayiner 7y ago

If China beats us to cheap nuclear power, the American era will be over. You can’t compete, economically or militarily, with cheap abundant renewable power with wind farms and conservation.

sunkenvicar 7y ago

Why build Gen 3 plants when they are on the cusp of commercializing Gen 4?

tomohawk 7y ago

Hopefully no-one will believe that the same government that built this disaster waiting to happen: https://www.theepochtimes.com/experts-warn-of-chinas-three-gorges-dam-demise_2994235.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/experts-warn-of-chinas-three-g... will be believable.

mrnobody_67 7y ago

The Simpsons destroyed public perception of nuclear. Homer Simpson as the safety inspector, green slime, and the three eye fish....

aussiegreenie 7y ago

China the future of nuclear power, the same country that has not started a new project in years and ALL current projects are at least 50% - 100% behind schedule.