6 ms·

That would be awesome, but unfortunately the CCP have proven to us that we can't trust their word.

by tpmx 5y ago

jdavis703 5y ago
They say they’re 9 years away. That’s a long enough date that I’d be skeptical of any government that was giving a prediction for nearly a decade out.
- zepto 5y ago
  That’s far enough away to be essentially meaningless because nobody will remember the claim.
- bell-cot 5y ago
  This. Is there any organization on earth - government, corporation, whatever - with even a mediocre track record for commercial-scale deployment of (fairly) radical new nuclear power technologies?
tablespoon 5y ago
> That would be awesome, but unfortunately the CCP has proven to us that we can't trust their word. Over and over again. IMHO, claims like this from them should be believed 100%, because to do otherwise invites complacency.
- smhost 5y ago
  this also isn't the type of thing that governments tend to lie about. it's not like a scenario where a contractor overpromises and underdelivers and government media has to do damage control. they're also not announcing some new leap in scientific understanding. it's old science.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > this also isn't the type of thing that governments tend to lie about This is the sort of thing governments lie about, IME - big, sensational achievements that enhance their status.
    - smhost 5y ago
      maybe in movies. governments mostly tend to lie about things they did badly, not about long-term accomplishments that can be fairly easily measured against their previous record, currently level of expertise, etc.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        > maybe in movies No, I said "IME". Don't try to dismiss other people.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        I think some citations and evidence are generally preferable to broad sweeping statements prefixed with "in my experience" - I'm not saying you're wrong but you've given me no reason to believe.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        I agree, though it seems hard to find evidence that would support this as a general trend (not just a few examples). It would require finding existing research, I think. However, the dismissive response also has no evidence.
        SantalBlush 5y ago
        For the time being, I am going to dismiss you until you provide some actual evidence to support your claim.
      - sandworm101 5y ago
        Lies about industrial progress? About industrial capacity? That is exactly the sort of thing that China has lied about in the past. There is a great video of Putin laughing as a minister talks about all the pork they export to indonesia. These sorts of lies are normal for such nations. Nobody takes them too seriously, especially those telling them.
- kenned3 5y ago
  unfortunately the CCP has proven to us that we can't trust their word. Over and over again Blaming others, deflection, and dishonesty is a common tactic used by every nation. Remember when the blackout in 2003 was caused by Canada? "Canadian officials insisted a massive blackout Thursday across the Northeast and parts of Canada originated in the United States, though U.S. power workers denied that and American officials blamed Canada." Remember how the 9/11 terrorists also came from Canada? Canada doesn't control entry to the US, and they never came via Canada at all but this was often quoted in the media, as a deflection. "Not one 9/11 terrorist entered the United States via Canada"
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    > "Not one 9/11 terrorist entered the United States via Canada" At least one organizer travelled from the Middle East to Canada to evade US flight watchlists, then later crossed into the US at the NY border. He is in an Egyptian prison now. The above is well-reported, and there are interviews with his "Canadian family" online. Besides him, his Canadian imam and mosque were likely heavily involved in his jihad. (Paris police find up to 50 co-conspirators for each jihadi shot to death.)
duairc 5y ago
> CCP has proven to us that we can't trust their word. Over and over again. Are you able to substantiate that claim?
- tpmx 5y ago
  > Are you able to substantiate that claim? https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/18/china-covid-19-killed-health-care-workers-worldwide/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/18/china-covid-19-killed-h... It is widely known that when the new coronavirus emerged in December 2019, the Chinese government downplayed the pandemic threat for several critical weeks. Less commonly known is those same authorities deliberately sacrificed health workers to maintain their lies. The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) calculated cover-up enabled the coronavirus to go global. By silencing doctors, Beijing not only fueled this pandemic but also compromised the world’s ability to spot the next one.
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    And before you downvote ^^ consider reading this page https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foreign-policy/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foreign-policy/
    - smhost 5y ago
      > In review, Foreign Policy covers news related to foreign affairs with minimal bias. Headlines are generally free from loaded words, though at times moderate such as this: Bernie Sanders Still Doesn’t Pass the Commander-in-Chief Test (anti-progressive) and this Trump Doesn’t Want to Play Peacemaker (anti-Trump). Both articles use proper sourcing. In general, Foreign Policy leans slightly right in their news coverage but balanced in reporting and well-sourced. This is hilarious. I wonder if there's a political group that benefits from attacking both these positions.
      - maerF0x0 5y ago
        Are you implying a specific group?
antman 5y ago
My thinking is that for major projects they mostly deliver against our intuition. What are the counter examples which are over and over again?
thinktankie 5y ago
Thank goodness China’s energy policy is not contingent on whether or not tpmx of Hackernews believes them or not.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Someone 5y ago
Reading the article, there aren’t huge scientific problems building these reactors. So, if there’s government support, it seems likely to me these will be built. I also think China has proven that it is willing and able to rapidly build infrastructure. That makes me think their timeline can be in the right ballpark, too. They also seem to have been willing to sacrifice quality for speed in large infrastructure projects, though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou_train_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou_train_collision, https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-40638820090627 https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-40638820090627, https://www.npr.org/2012/08/29/160231137/chinese-blame-failed-infrastructure-on-corruption?t=1628123121346 https://www.npr.org/2012/08/29/160231137/chinese-blame-faile...) That’s something I would worry more about (disclaimer: China is huge, so it will have its share of disasters. It also probably will pay more attention to nuclear projects than to bread-and-butter concrete pouring for buildings and roads)
CyanBird 5y ago
You ought read the article rather than post your own mindless prejudices and mental cliches Hackernews styles itself of thoughtful discussion
acidburnNSA 5y ago
This guy on Twitter named Conrad Knauer [1] who has been diligently following satellite photos and cross-referencing them with the design publications for TMSR-1 that makes it all seem pretty believable. Pretty round-about way to verify things but it's something. [1] https://twitter.com/ConradKnauer https://twitter.com/ConradKnauer
- petre 5y ago
  > Moderator: nuclear graphite This moderator develops cracks during normal operation as seen in UK's AGR several other designs. And it burns in case of an accident (Windscale, Chernobyl). Since the TMSR-LF1 is an experimental project I also assume that it's a single fluid design? More detailed information on the TMSR-LF1 is quite hard to find but it says that it's based on the original Oak Ridge MSR design. "Old proposed single fluid designs promising breeding performance tend to have an unsafe positive void coefficient and often assume excessive fuel cleaning to be economic viable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reacto...

That would be awesome, but unfortunately the CCP have proven to us that we can't trust their word.

by tpmx 5y ago

That would be awesome, but unfortunately the CCP have proven to us that we can't trust their word.

They say they’re 9 years away. That’s a long enough date that I’d be skeptical of any government that was giving a prediction for nearly a decade out.

zepto 5y ago
That’s far enough away to be essentially meaningless because nobody will remember the claim.
bell-cot 5y ago
This. Is there any organization on earth - government, corporation, whatever - with even a mediocre track record for commercial-scale deployment of (fairly) radical new nuclear power technologies?

tablespoon 5y ago

> That would be awesome, but unfortunately the CCP has proven to us that we can't trust their word. Over and over again. IMHO, claims like this from them should be believed 100%, because to do otherwise invites complacency.

smhost 5y ago
this also isn't the type of thing that governments tend to lie about. it's not like a scenario where a contractor overpromises and underdelivers and government media has to do damage control. they're also not announcing some new leap in scientific understanding. it's old science.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > this also isn't the type of thing that governments tend to lie about This is the sort of thing governments lie about, IME - big, sensational achievements that enhance their status.
  - smhost 5y ago
    maybe in movies. governments mostly tend to lie about things they did badly, not about long-term accomplishments that can be fairly easily measured against their previous record, currently level of expertise, etc.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > maybe in movies No, I said "IME". Don't try to dismiss other people.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        I think some citations and evidence are generally preferable to broad sweeping statements prefixed with "in my experience" - I'm not saying you're wrong but you've given me no reason to believe.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        I agree, though it seems hard to find evidence that would support this as a general trend (not just a few examples). It would require finding existing research, I think. However, the dismissive response also has no evidence.
      - SantalBlush 5y ago
        For the time being, I am going to dismiss you until you provide some actual evidence to support your claim.
    - sandworm101 5y ago
      Lies about industrial progress? About industrial capacity? That is exactly the sort of thing that China has lied about in the past. There is a great video of Putin laughing as a minister talks about all the pork they export to indonesia. These sorts of lies are normal for such nations. Nobody takes them too seriously, especially those telling them.
kenned3 5y ago
unfortunately the CCP has proven to us that we can't trust their word. Over and over again Blaming others, deflection, and dishonesty is a common tactic used by every nation. Remember when the blackout in 2003 was caused by Canada? "Canadian officials insisted a massive blackout Thursday across the Northeast and parts of Canada originated in the United States, though U.S. power workers denied that and American officials blamed Canada." Remember how the 9/11 terrorists also came from Canada? Canada doesn't control entry to the US, and they never came via Canada at all but this was often quoted in the media, as a deflection. "Not one 9/11 terrorist entered the United States via Canada"
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  > "Not one 9/11 terrorist entered the United States via Canada" At least one organizer travelled from the Middle East to Canada to evade US flight watchlists, then later crossed into the US at the NY border. He is in an Egyptian prison now. The above is well-reported, and there are interviews with his "Canadian family" online. Besides him, his Canadian imam and mosque were likely heavily involved in his jihad. (Paris police find up to 50 co-conspirators for each jihadi shot to death.)

duairc 5y ago

> CCP has proven to us that we can't trust their word. Over and over again. Are you able to substantiate that claim?

tpmx 5y ago
> Are you able to substantiate that claim? https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/18/china-covid-19-killed-health-care-workers-worldwide/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/18/china-covid-19-killed-h... It is widely known that when the new coronavirus emerged in December 2019, the Chinese government downplayed the pandemic threat for several critical weeks. Less commonly known is those same authorities deliberately sacrificed health workers to maintain their lies. The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) calculated cover-up enabled the coronavirus to go global. By silencing doctors, Beijing not only fueled this pandemic but also compromised the world’s ability to spot the next one.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  And before you downvote ^^ consider reading this page https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foreign-policy/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foreign-policy/
  - smhost 5y ago
    > In review, Foreign Policy covers news related to foreign affairs with minimal bias. Headlines are generally free from loaded words, though at times moderate such as this: Bernie Sanders Still Doesn’t Pass the Commander-in-Chief Test (anti-progressive) and this Trump Doesn’t Want to Play Peacemaker (anti-Trump). Both articles use proper sourcing. In general, Foreign Policy leans slightly right in their news coverage but balanced in reporting and well-sourced. This is hilarious. I wonder if there's a political group that benefits from attacking both these positions.
    - maerF0x0 5y ago
      Are you implying a specific group?

antman 5y ago

My thinking is that for major projects they mostly deliver against our intuition. What are the counter examples which are over and over again?

thinktankie 5y ago

Thank goodness China’s energy policy is not contingent on whether or not tpmx of Hackernews believes them or not.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Someone 5y ago

Reading the article, there aren’t huge scientific problems building these reactors. So, if there’s government support, it seems likely to me these will be built. I also think China has proven that it is willing and able to rapidly build infrastructure. That makes me think their timeline can be in the right ballpark, too. They also seem to have been willing to sacrifice quality for speed in large infrastructure projects, though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou_train_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou_train_collision, https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-40638820090627 https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-40638820090627, https://www.npr.org/2012/08/29/160231137/chinese-blame-failed-infrastructure-on-corruption?t=1628123121346 https://www.npr.org/2012/08/29/160231137/chinese-blame-faile...) That’s something I would worry more about (disclaimer: China is huge, so it will have its share of disasters. It also probably will pay more attention to nuclear projects than to bread-and-butter concrete pouring for buildings and roads)

CyanBird 5y ago

You ought read the article rather than post your own mindless prejudices and mental cliches Hackernews styles itself of thoughtful discussion

acidburnNSA 5y ago

This guy on Twitter named Conrad Knauer [1] who has been diligently following satellite photos and cross-referencing them with the design publications for TMSR-1 that makes it all seem pretty believable. Pretty round-about way to verify things but it's something. [1] https://twitter.com/ConradKnauer https://twitter.com/ConradKnauer

petre 5y ago
> Moderator: nuclear graphite This moderator develops cracks during normal operation as seen in UK's AGR several other designs. And it burns in case of an accident (Windscale, Chernobyl). Since the TMSR-LF1 is an experimental project I also assume that it's a single fluid design? More detailed information on the TMSR-LF1 is quite hard to find but it says that it's based on the original Oak Ridge MSR design. "Old proposed single fluid designs promising breeding performance tend to have an unsafe positive void coefficient and often assume excessive fuel cleaning to be economic viable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reacto...