7 ms·

China is investing in nuclear power. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy

China is investing in nuclear power. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-wil... > As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down. Nuclear provides only 2% of China’s electrical power now, but the country intends nuclear to eventually surpass all other sources

mytailorisrich 5y ago
China actually has a couple of French-built nuclear power plants. There's been a long standing cooperation in that domain.
dragonelite 5y ago
They are also running 4th generation thorium molten salt reactors prototypes and thinking of having a commercial viable design in 2030. From what I gathered the waste is not that suitable for nuclear weapon usage. So those Reactors could be exported to SCO/BRI/global south countries. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w
- ortusdux 5y ago
  The problem with molten salt based reactors is that the high temperature radioactive molten salts destroy their containment vessels. I've yet to see a system design where the salt facing components are expected to last more that 7-10 years, which really hurts profitability.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Yes, the reactor cores would have to be replaced every 12-15 years. But if the reactors are mass produced and designed to swap out the cores, it doesn't have to be too expensive.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      What happens to the used cores?
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        They have to be disposed of. That creates waste. This is the same as with any other power generation method that exceeds it's lifespan. 15 years is not that different from 20 years for a wind turbine or 30 years for a solar panel.
        spfzero 5y ago
        Solar panels are lasting about 10-15 years in practice. About half of what was expected.
        jhgb 5y ago
        I call BS on that. This was the performance of ancient modules (early 1980s) after 25 years of operation: https://energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/19320/performance-of-old-pv-modules-measurement-of-25-years-old-crystalline-silicone-modules-elforskrapport-2006-71.pdf https://energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/19320/p... And this was for modules manufactured in a period with 5-10 year warranties for the product. Today you get 25 year warranties. So you're basically claiming that QA massively worsened in the meantime.
    - bipson 5y ago
      Still not "sustainable". And not really cheap either.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        It is actually quite sustainable. The reactor core is not a large cost for a GW over 15 years. The US navy swaps out reactor cores for 100-200 million dollars, and those are in submarines and ships. There is basically no maintenance outside of those. For comparison, a GW of wind capacity is 1.6 billion every 20 years. For solar panels for 1GW of average generation you'll be paying 10 billion dollars or so every 25-30 years.
  - PaulHoule 5y ago
    There are two problems. One is corrosion/radiation damage to the reactor vessel which is probably made with something like http://www.haynesintl.com/alloys/alloy-portfolio_/Corrosion-resistant-Alloys/hastelloy-n-alloy/principle-features http://www.haynesintl.com/alloys/alloy-portfolio_/Corrosion-... The other is that most of these designs have a graphite moderator, and the graphite gets damaged in the reactor environment.
    - ortusdux 5y ago
      I would consider graphite moderators under the umbrella of salt facing components. High Ni alloys such as Hast-N have their own issues - mainly radiation induced Ni -> He embrittlement and tellurium embrittlement. That being said, they are very promising.
- tehjoker 5y ago
  Thorium reactors produce isotopes that can be converted into U238, which is less desirable than U235 for weapons purposes, but can be converted into a usable if annoying and expensive to manage bomb due to its high gamma production. https://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power-weapons/thorium https://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power-weapons...
beebmam 5y ago
Part of this is due to China's new expansion of their nuclear arsenal: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57995185 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57995185
- tehjoker 5y ago
  Why would they build land based missiles? My understanding is that that part of the US triad is basically pork due to the capabilities of sea and air and the fact that they are static installations that can be easily targeted. I can only speculate that it could make sense for China if their sea and air power are substantially less capable. It's pretty amusing for US officials to express concern over an increasing arsenal when they are themselves spending over a trillion dollars on that exact thing while they deliberately provoke China over the Taiwan issue, placing US soldiers in Taiwan, which is considered Chinese territory. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-troops-have-been-deployed-in-taiwan-for-at-least-a-year-11633614043 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-troops-have-been-deployed-i...
  - 3pt14159 5y ago
    It isn't really a Triad these days. It's more like a hexaiad when you consider the various forms that nuclear weapons can take. But as to your question, silos benefit from very reliable coms. It's possible to communicate to subs, but it is slow and unreliable. Airpower suffers from jamming and signs of strike, since the planes need to be put in the air and that is observable. There is also a limit to the size of the missiles and therefore immediate range. If you want to strike anywhere on command with little notice, silos are best. If you want to hit foreign target with absolutely minimal response time, submarines usually win out, since most major capitals are by the ocean. But even beyond this consideration, it is good to have a diversity of options to reduce the risk of a catastrophic vulnerability existing. For example, some hypothetical weapon that could eliminate all your submarines without warning.
    - tehjoker 5y ago
      Good answer, thank you!
pixiemaster 5y ago
they have also build hundred of steam reactors that have a modular heating system - while currently served with a coal system can be exchanged by nuclear heating anytime
jhgb 5y ago
> China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation > Nuclear provides only 2% of China’s electrical power now So only ~2500 more reactors to go? That sounds like a century of work.
felixlechat 5y ago
Nuclear provides 4.8% of China's electrical power [1] in 2020 and 2% of China's energy mix. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?country=~CHN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?coun...

mytailorisrich 5y ago

China actually has a couple of French-built nuclear power plants. There's been a long standing cooperation in that domain.

dragonelite 5y ago

They are also running 4th generation thorium molten salt reactors prototypes and thinking of having a commercial viable design in 2030. From what I gathered the waste is not that suitable for nuclear weapon usage. So those Reactors could be exported to SCO/BRI/global south countries. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w

ortusdux 5y ago
The problem with molten salt based reactors is that the high temperature radioactive molten salts destroy their containment vessels. I've yet to see a system design where the salt facing components are expected to last more that 7-10 years, which really hurts profitability.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Yes, the reactor cores would have to be replaced every 12-15 years. But if the reactors are mass produced and designed to swap out the cores, it doesn't have to be too expensive.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    What happens to the used cores?
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      They have to be disposed of. That creates waste. This is the same as with any other power generation method that exceeds it's lifespan. 15 years is not that different from 20 years for a wind turbine or 30 years for a solar panel.
      - spfzero 5y ago
        Solar panels are lasting about 10-15 years in practice. About half of what was expected.
        jhgb 5y ago
        I call BS on that. This was the performance of ancient modules (early 1980s) after 25 years of operation: https://energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/19320/performance-of-old-pv-modules-measurement-of-25-years-old-crystalline-silicone-modules-elforskrapport-2006-71.pdf https://energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/19320/p... And this was for modules manufactured in a period with 5-10 year warranties for the product. Today you get 25 year warranties. So you're basically claiming that QA massively worsened in the meantime.
  - bipson 5y ago
    Still not "sustainable". And not really cheap either.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      It is actually quite sustainable. The reactor core is not a large cost for a GW over 15 years. The US navy swaps out reactor cores for 100-200 million dollars, and those are in submarines and ships. There is basically no maintenance outside of those. For comparison, a GW of wind capacity is 1.6 billion every 20 years. For solar panels for 1GW of average generation you'll be paying 10 billion dollars or so every 25-30 years.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  There are two problems. One is corrosion/radiation damage to the reactor vessel which is probably made with something like http://www.haynesintl.com/alloys/alloy-portfolio_/Corrosion-resistant-Alloys/hastelloy-n-alloy/principle-features http://www.haynesintl.com/alloys/alloy-portfolio_/Corrosion-... The other is that most of these designs have a graphite moderator, and the graphite gets damaged in the reactor environment.
  - ortusdux 5y ago
    I would consider graphite moderators under the umbrella of salt facing components. High Ni alloys such as Hast-N have their own issues - mainly radiation induced Ni -> He embrittlement and tellurium embrittlement. That being said, they are very promising.
tehjoker 5y ago
Thorium reactors produce isotopes that can be converted into U238, which is less desirable than U235 for weapons purposes, but can be converted into a usable if annoying and expensive to manage bomb due to its high gamma production. https://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power-weapons/thorium https://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power-weapons...

beebmam 5y ago

Part of this is due to China's new expansion of their nuclear arsenal: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57995185 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57995185

tehjoker 5y ago
Why would they build land based missiles? My understanding is that that part of the US triad is basically pork due to the capabilities of sea and air and the fact that they are static installations that can be easily targeted. I can only speculate that it could make sense for China if their sea and air power are substantially less capable. It's pretty amusing for US officials to express concern over an increasing arsenal when they are themselves spending over a trillion dollars on that exact thing while they deliberately provoke China over the Taiwan issue, placing US soldiers in Taiwan, which is considered Chinese territory. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-troops-have-been-deployed-in-taiwan-for-at-least-a-year-11633614043 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-troops-have-been-deployed-i...
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  It isn't really a Triad these days. It's more like a hexaiad when you consider the various forms that nuclear weapons can take. But as to your question, silos benefit from very reliable coms. It's possible to communicate to subs, but it is slow and unreliable. Airpower suffers from jamming and signs of strike, since the planes need to be put in the air and that is observable. There is also a limit to the size of the missiles and therefore immediate range. If you want to strike anywhere on command with little notice, silos are best. If you want to hit foreign target with absolutely minimal response time, submarines usually win out, since most major capitals are by the ocean. But even beyond this consideration, it is good to have a diversity of options to reduce the risk of a catastrophic vulnerability existing. For example, some hypothetical weapon that could eliminate all your submarines without warning.
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    Good answer, thank you!

pixiemaster 5y ago

they have also build hundred of steam reactors that have a modular heating system - while currently served with a coal system can be exchanged by nuclear heating anytime

jhgb 5y ago

> China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation > Nuclear provides only 2% of China’s electrical power now So only ~2500 more reactors to go? That sounds like a century of work.

felixlechat 5y ago

Nuclear provides 4.8% of China's electrical power [1] in 2020 and 2% of China's energy mix. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?country=~CHN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?coun...