28 ms·

China to supercharge uranium race with 150 new nuclear reactors

261 points by 1cvmask 5y ago

kragen 5y ago
"The cost of China’s new nuclear ambition has been estimated at US$440 billion." But it doesn't say how much power that is, just that it's 150 new reactors, so it's about US$3B per reactor. https://archive.md/A5B6S https://archive.md/A5B6S shows that the article didn't say how much power it was 9 hours ago either. So, is this 15 GW, 150 GW, or 1500 GW? PV modules are about US$0.2/Wp, so if it were PV panels, US$440B would buy them 2.2 terawatts peak. At an average capacity factor of 20% (though, as pfdietz points out, most new utility-scale solar has single-axis tracking, which pushes it to 30%) that would be 440 GW, but China's historical PV capacity factor has been terrible, more like 12% IIRC (maybe due to a Chinese version of the irrational misregulation robomartin documents in California in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29155094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29155094). 12% would make it more like 260 GW. But a PV power plant includes things that aren't panels; balance of plant (inverter, wiring, grid connection, monitoring, mounting, security) is typically roughly equal to the module cost. So it would be more like 130 GW. (Total costs of utility-scale solar in the US are about twice that in China <https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Articles/2017/Jul/Bonn-Uni-Lecture--True-costs-of-renewables.pdf?la=en&hash=B7DD1720455A1ED042094C007D8B8C74F274AAFC https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Articles/20...> at about US$0.89/Wp according to pfdietz <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29155644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29155644>. In the US, nuclear plants cost about US$8/We. If China's program was at the same cost, it would provide 55 GW. If it was closer to the cost of US nuclear plants in the 01970s about US$1/We (and if the US$440B number is correct), it would provide 440 GW. The threads at https://birdsite.xanny.family/pretentiouswhat/status/1293961095892279296 https://birdsite.xanny.family/pretentiouswhat/status/1293961... and https://birdsite.xanny.family/pretentiouswhat/status/1318838054891573249#m https://birdsite.xanny.family/pretentiouswhat/status/1318838... provide some more context, suggesting that the "HPR1000, aka Hualong One 华龙一号", is the reactor being used at these 150 sites. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809916301515 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209580991... says the HPR1000 is 3.050 GW thermal, 1.070 GW electric, net. (See also https://www.ukhpr1000.co.uk/the-uk-hpr1000-technology/hpr1000-design/ https://www.ukhpr1000.co.uk/the-uk-hpr1000-technology/hpr100... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualong_One https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualong_One.) So 150 of them would produce 161 GW electric, which (if that's US$440B) would put the cost around US$3/We, about twice the cost of the same generation capacity via PV with single-axis tracking, not including any cost of storage. But maybe that's 150 power plants, each with nuclear reactors, not 150 nuclear reactors?
Zigurd 5y ago
This is a really shoddy article: It is in a "small caps" newsletter, mentions a couple specific small cap mining companies, and does not provide any sources for the assertion that China will build 150 nuclear power plants. It just jumps to "Buy these stonks."
newaccount2021 5y ago
that's fine, our new trillion+ infrastructure bill will enable the government to extend 25mbps broadband to a dozen rural schools, repave approximately four miles of roads, six miles of new sidewalks, and another lease on life for Califorinia HSR so they can finally bring rail to Turlock bridges are out, that would have required another two trillion
- danny_codes 5y ago
  I feel you. The mainstream approach to industrial policy and infrastructure investment in the US is so embarrassing. It's painfully obvious that the US could sink 10s of trillions into infrastructure without over-investing. And infrastructure is almost always net-positive, meaning it pays for itself. We can literally just print money to do this and the economy will _improve_.
DeathArrow 5y ago
20 years ago I thought we are on the verge of cracking the fusion process and are about to get very cheap energy. 20 years later we still use not so efficient fision technology.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  In what sense are you using the word "efficient" here, and why does that sense matter?
PaulHoule 5y ago
There is that alternate timeline where the US built the 500 reactors we were planning to build by 2000 and in which, in 2021, global warming was seen as a minor issue rather than a "climate crisis".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- uhtred 5y ago
  Any idea why didn't the US keep to that plan?
  - leesec 5y ago
    Nixon left.
  - deathcalibur 5y ago
    I’m guessing Three Mile Island + Chernobyl. Maybe start here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the...
    - trimbo 5y ago
      I long thought that the simultaneous release of "The China Syndrome" and TMI led to public fear of nuclear power (TMI happened two weeks after the movie debuted!). But apparently people have studied this and these disasters really didn't have a major effect -- public sentiment generally stayed the same around the time of the accidents[1] [1] - This link only covers Chernobyl and Fukushima: https://www.ans.org/news/article-321/new-polls-show-substantial-support-for-nuclear-energy/ https://www.ans.org/news/article-321/new-polls-show-substant...
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      The passage of PURPA in 1978 had a bigger effect. Suddenly utilities were opened to competition. Combined with a slowdown in growth of electric power demand and the window closed on new nuclear.
dharmaturtle 5y ago
Previous discussion, 5 days ago (20 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29094422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29094422
holonomically 5y ago
Meanwhile the US is focusing on renewables. This is not going well for the US.
ActionHank 5y ago
$100 says China makes deals to store the waste in Africa.
- Accujack 5y ago
  I'll take this. They don't need to store the waste anywhere other than their own land, there's not going to be that much of it.
  - Tenoke 5y ago
    They've indeed just opened a facility for reusing nuclear waste locally[0] though in all fairness they have stored some waste in Sudan before[1]. 0. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234033.shtml https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234033.shtml 1. https://www.dabangasudan.org/en/all-news/article/official-china-buried-nuclear-waste-in-sudan-s-desert https://www.dabangasudan.org/en/all-news/article/official-ch...
- laluser 5y ago
  Is the waste really that large? I was under the impression that the waste was rather manageable.
  - dr-detroit 5y ago
    Putin is the richest person on earth because of the money Germany pays him to dump nuclear waste in the urals.
  - chomp 5y ago
    It's not, storage is mostly a logistical and political problem. Logistical in the sense that the storage needs to be secure on timelines longer than a few generations. Political in the sense that no one wants it in their back yard. Low level waste is the largest by volume by the way, so mostly not related to nuclear reactors.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
robomartin 5y ago
I have been saying this for quite some time: The future vision of an all-electric ground transportation system is between impossible and untenable without a massive scale-up in nuclear energy generation in places like the US. Years ago, as I was trying to understand the reality of electric vehicles, among other things, I put together a model that simulates a fleet of 300 million electric vehicles charging across our various time zones. The model accounts for various percentages of vehicles slow charging overnight (typical at-home charging scenario) and the balance fast-charging. The model uses Tesla charging data (rate of charge, energy requirements, miles per kWh, etc.). The result indicated we need 900 to 1400 GW in order to support a full transition to electric charging. This is IN ADDTION TO what we produce today, which is in the order of 1200 GW. In other words, we need to ADD capacity, we can't magic-wand our way into this reality. In essence, we have to produce the effective energy provided today by gasoline and diesel. By this I mean, once you account for efficiency, the bottom line is gasoline/diesel are used to move a certain mass of vehicles a certain distance in a certain time every day. Whatever is required to do the same with electrics, that's what we need. This is new energy, we can't pull it out of the existing infrastructure. And, speaking of infrastructure, it is important that this is, in many ways more about power than energy. Why? Because it takes power to charge N cars simultaneously in a given geographic region. Even if everyone slow-charges, the time period is finite, say, 8 hours max. This still translates to a requirement for power. The energy is what fills the bucket. Power is how fast you fill it. With so many vehicles plugged in at the same time, you need power over a reasonable period of time. Our grid cannot currently handle such a step change in power transportation. To put it simply: We need larger pipes. This could also mean we need far more than the 900 to 1400 GW I think we do. That is because you have to deliver power, not energy over 24 hours. Solar? No. Not really. It can help, but, at scale, at the scale we need, I think I can very easily make the argument that if the goal is to have clean energy, solar at this scale is far from clean. I can't even imagine the billions of batteries we would need. And then, every N years, you have to deal with recycling or disposing of them. This isn't a simple problem at all. Yet nuclear is, in my opinion, the ONLY technology that can actually deliver on a future vision of an all-electric transportation system. Here's the problem: I don't know about Europe. In the US, in the time it would take us to build a single nuclear reactor (30 years?), China will likely build 300 of them, if not more. The efficiency and focus with which they execute on the obvious plan to achieve economic and technical superiority across the board is nothing less than awe-inspiring. While our politicians burn clock cycles with stupid power games and nonsense, China wakes up every day and puts one foot in front of the other. The only way to think of this is that they deserve the success they have achieved through hard work, focus and perhaps the most impressive national-scale entrepreneurial drive in the history of humanity. I work with Chinese companies (as suppliers in the context of manufacturing) every day. The difference between us and them is absolutely unimaginable to anyone who isn't in this business. All I can say is that, if people in the West don't wake up and start voting for politicians who actually know what they fuck they are doing, the story of what's ahead isn't a good one. Notice that I am not identifying any specific party. In fact, a good starting point would be to fire almost everyone in government and bring in new blood with a new mandate. I better stop here. I get too worked-up about this stuff. It pains me to see so many hard-working people suffer because the people in command of the ship are constantly engaged in power games and bullshit and ignore the fact that the boat is filling with water and will eventually sink.
coolspot 5y ago
Also, reactors are necessary to make weapon-grade isotopes.
- bsedlm 5y ago
  sometimes I think that this is a much bigger reason for nuclear electricity than anybody would ever publicly admit. to the point that if you remove all apperances (politics, marketing, etc) this is THE biggest drive behind the push to nuclear
  - jjk166 5y ago
    Not really, while yes any nuclear reactor could in theory be used to produce weapons grade material, in practice designs optimized for plutonium breeding are radically different from power generating plants. Further, you don't need nuclear reactors for weapons material production, you can just enrich uranium. In fact, enriching uranium in sufficient quantity for reactors actually requires significantly larger and more expensive set ups than would be needed for weapons production. There might be some small states that want to disguise their weapons programs as peaceful power generation programs, but for countries like China and the US which are already well known to possess such weapons, there's really no incentive.
  - danny_codes 5y ago
    I fail to see how this is relevant. China can already make nuclear weapons and presumably has a MAD amount. Nobody needs more than a couple hundred thermonuclear weapons, there's nothing left to hit with the next 100.
- erentz 5y ago
  10 countries with nuclear weapons. 2 of which don’t have nuclear power. 35 countries with nuclear power. 27 of which don’t have nuclear weapons.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
wolverine876 5y ago
I don't understand why people are focusing on nuclear now, and not 5 years ago or 10 years ago. What has changed? If I understand correctly, technology hasn't changed. People want nuclear because either they don't think renewables can scale up quickly enough or because of the base load problem (renewables can't always provide energy on demand). Has any of that changed? Renewables generally are cheaper and have more scale now. If we'd started 10 years ago, we might have some plants coming online soon.
- 99_00 5y ago
  >What has changed? Wind and solar were rolled out at state and national scale.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  People forgot the last set of nuclear boondogels. Nothing sells a pyramid scheme like 10 years without one...
- cbsmith 5y ago
  I mean... the technology has changed, but it is hard to argue that it has changed in a way that makes the decision different.
- liuliu 5y ago
  Because China encountered major setback on their nuclear ambitions due to the US ban (China was previous planning to use US technology for their nuclear plants). It took a few years (>5) for them to mature domestic technology and scale up nuclear plants.
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  It is the last death throes of an industry coupled with some tech minded people thinking it's controversial and cool, even though the tech in reality is old and boring. The "silver bullet" to fix climate change, much like we saw with all manner of things last year with Covid. The one chance to revive nuclear power in the west through Virgil C. Summer, Vogtle, Hinkley Point C, Flammanville and Olkiluoto 3 failed miserably with several of the major players now bankrupt. China keeps dipping it's toes in nuclear to keep the option open but no real commitment, and this announcement of 150 reactors is no real change to the long term plans either. In 2019, China had a new target of 200 GWe of nuclear generating capacity by 2035, which is 7.7% out of predicted total electricity generating capacity of 2600 GWe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China So with about 50 GWe from 50 reactors today adding another 150 gives you the same goal of about 200 GWe.
nabla9 5y ago
Nuclear reactor manufacturing is not a simple thing to ramp up quickly. China is buying reactors from the US, France, Russia, and they have their own designs. They need to reserve pretty much all manufacturing capacity that exists and add more.
baybal2 5y ago
> Uranium race Are you sure it's not a "Plutonium race?" China is the nation with the fastest growing nuclear arsenal today.
- FooBarWidget 5y ago
  China should reduce their stockpile to 1/3rd of US's.
  - dragonelite 5y ago
    I see what you did there :p
skmurphy 5y ago
This is good news if they follow through. Likely to have a number of beneficial effects directly in China and as follow on effects globally.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
If it gets them to shut down their coal plants, great. And I think that actually is the primary motivation. They need lots of power and they need to stop killing their citizens with smog from coal (as well as our planet). I think it will cost them financially though. This won't come cheap. Half a trillion for about 1200 GW of capacity is a lot and not necessarily the best value for money. However, they have about that amount of coal to replace as well. The issue with wind and solar is that we're only adding in the order of a few hundred GW per year. China needs an order of magnitude more just to get rid of coal. The interesting thing will be if production capacity for wind turbines and solar panels will grow quickly enough to make this investment unnecessary. One order of magnitude increase in production capacity would do the trick. Not trivial; and China is already going as fast as it can with this. But also not impossible. It's going to be a close race. China might simply be betting on multiple horses here; which is the smart thing to do. I don't think they are picking winners here; just losers. Which would be coal. It needs to go, hence the need to fix 1000+ GW of power demand while also accounting for continued economic growth. They aren't ready to commit to that at COP 26 just yet. But the timing of this announcement is no coincidence either. Another horse in the race would be fusion. Apparently there is some serious money flowing into some companies now. Helion just did a 500M series E: https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/05/helion-energy-will-use-500m-series-e-to-power-up-its-fusion-energy-efforts/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/05/helion-energy-will-use-500.... That may or may not work but it's kind of a really big deal if that hits commercial viability this decade rather than in 2050. And as the US has less of a coal problem at this point (most of it will be gone by the middle of this decade), nuclear is less urgent as a solution. And unlike nuclear, fusion actually might have a shot at being cost competitive with other renewables. Helion is pitching 0.01$/kwh. That's the right level of ambition here.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  Excuse my ignorance, but where did you get the 500 billion price tag? And why do you say it's expensive? It's rather cheap. People keep saying how solar is the cheapest capacity to install, at 1 dollar per Watt. 1200 GW would be 1.2 trillions, and only offering around 240GW "constant" production, whereas nuclear is half the price to build but more like 1000 GW constant production
cletus 5y ago
Good for China. I hope it works out for them. China seems politically stable and already has nuclear weapons so there's really no additional risk here. I'm happy to sit back and learn from their mistakes. I'm honestly surprised at the rose-coloured glasses many on HN view nuclear with. Like even if the US was all-nuclear, the change in global emissions wouldn't be that high because the US accounts for <20% of global emissions and probably only a quarter of that is from power generation. But here's another factor: if the US wasn't a consumer of fossil fuels, the only thing that changes is it becomes cheaper for everyone else and that probably increases consumption to the point where the emissions are near net-neutral. And for that we have a bunch of reactors with terrible failure modes and unanswered questions about long-term reprocessing and/or storage of enrichment byproducts, the same for waste and we'd need to trust governments and corporations to manage it all. The resistance to wearing a piece of fabric on your face while out in public by a significant portion of the population should tell you everything you need to know here: no amount of altruism will solve climate change. Economics will. My bet is the long term future here is solar not nuclear. That's a deep topic. Those pointing out that sometimes it's night aren't factoring in expected improvements in energy storage tech nor thinking long term enough. You put the collectors in space and eventually run transmission lines to the ground. And no, I'm not kidding. If you feel like going down this rabbit hole, look up orbital rings.
- 93po 5y ago
  If people lose their minds at tiny specs of satellites used for musknet then imagine the outcry at this idea
eunos 5y ago
With all the renewed interest in Nuclear, do we have enough uranium reserve if say US, China, EU and India decided to go big on nuclear ?
- korantu 5y ago
  Fuel is miniscule part of nuclear energy cost. With increased demand it will be profitable to prospect for more, and uranium is not a rare element.
Daniel_sk 5y ago
Uranium stocks have been soaring since 2020, some have 10x gains already. Check UUUU, DNN or if you want ETF then maybe URNM.
- bduerst 5y ago
  Are these holdings? Mining companies? Production?
rllearneratwork 5y ago
apparently China chose to lead the future.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Maybe something like this will inspire the US to do something similar.
ngcc_hk 5y ago
A better Soviet Union is still a Soviet Union. Totalitarian success is not human environmental friendly.
phtrivier 5y ago
Yeah, great. We all forgot how to do nuclear in western démocraties because we were afraid of accidents and did not trust indépendant oversight. Now all the nuclear plants will be in state-controlled dictatorships with a disdain for truth. But I'm pretty sure Greenpeace will organize mediatized flash mobs in tienenman square, sure ? What could possibly go wrong ?
perryizgr8 5y ago
It seems China figures out what's the best thing to do, and then just does it. There's no doubts or unnecessary debate about it. It has been clear to anyone who is paying attention that nuclear power (even fission) is vastly superior to every other method in the long term. It is cleaner than coal/gas, more reliable than solar/wind, less environmentally disruptive than hydro. Then why isn't everybody doing it? At least the countries with the know-how should be all in on it. USA, Germany, Japan, India, France, all of these should be building a hundred new reactors every year. But instead we are sitting on our assess while China marches on.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
afroboy 5y ago
In case of war those are really weak points for china, "In case of war".
Tade0 5y ago
If my estimates about the reactor size are correct, they're just going to make nuclear keep up with solar in terms of additional GWh delivered annually by the newly build plants, so it's less a focus on nuclear and more a diversification of their mix.
natmaka 5y ago
As far as I know China didn't announce anything. Where is the official announcement? The source is a Bloomberg article ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli... ) which states that the boss of Chine General Power corp. announced his plans 200GW for 2035, nothing more. Admitting that it is an official governmental announcement (it doesn't seem so(?)) and given that China already has 50GW, that's maybe 100GW new (way less than 150 standard reactors). Compare with renewables: 790GW already running (26% of the gridpower), and 1200GW planned for 2030. In 2020 China added 71,6GW windturbine power. Even considering the load factors the picture is pretty clear. Complements: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2021-HTML.html#_idTextAnchor021 https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industr... https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2021-HTML.html#_idTextAnchor175 https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industr... (Thanks to Y. Marignac for part of the data)

261 points by 1cvmask 5y ago

"The cost of China’s new nuclear ambition has been estimated at US$440 billion." But it doesn't say how much power that is, just that it's 150 new reactors, so it's about US$3B per reactor. https://archive.md/A5B6S https://archive.md/A5B6S shows that the article didn't say how much power it was 9 hours ago either. So, is this 15 GW, 150 GW, or 1500 GW? PV modules are about US$0.2/Wp, so if it were PV panels, US$440B would buy them 2.2 terawatts peak. At an average capacity factor of 20% (though, as pfdietz points out, most new utility-scale solar has single-axis tracking, which pushes it to 30%) that would be 440 GW, but China's historical PV capacity factor has been terrible, more like 12% IIRC (maybe due to a Chinese version of the irrational misregulation robomartin documents in California in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29155094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29155094). 12% would make it more like 260 GW. But a PV power plant includes things that aren't panels; balance of plant (inverter, wiring, grid connection, monitoring, mounting, security) is typically roughly equal to the module cost. So it would be more like 130 GW. (Total costs of utility-scale solar in the US are about twice that in China <https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Articles/2017/Jul/Bonn-Uni-Lecture--True-costs-of-renewables.pdf?la=en&hash=B7DD1720455A1ED042094C007D8B8C74F274AAFC https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Articles/20...> at about US$0.89/Wp according to pfdietz <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29155644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29155644>. In the US, nuclear plants cost about US$8/We. If China's program was at the same cost, it would provide 55 GW. If it was closer to the cost of US nuclear plants in the 01970s about US$1/We (and if the US$440B number is correct), it would provide 440 GW. The threads at https://birdsite.xanny.family/pretentiouswhat/status/1293961095892279296 https://birdsite.xanny.family/pretentiouswhat/status/1293961... and https://birdsite.xanny.family/pretentiouswhat/status/1318838054891573249#m https://birdsite.xanny.family/pretentiouswhat/status/1318838... provide some more context, suggesting that the "HPR1000, aka Hualong One 华龙一号", is the reactor being used at these 150 sites. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809916301515 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209580991... says the HPR1000 is 3.050 GW thermal, 1.070 GW electric, net. (See also https://www.ukhpr1000.co.uk/the-uk-hpr1000-technology/hpr1000-design/ https://www.ukhpr1000.co.uk/the-uk-hpr1000-technology/hpr100... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualong_One https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualong_One.) So 150 of them would produce 161 GW electric, which (if that's US$440B) would put the cost around US$3/We, about twice the cost of the same generation capacity via PV with single-axis tracking, not including any cost of storage. But maybe that's 150 power plants, each with nuclear reactors, not 150 nuclear reactors?

Zigurd 5y ago

This is a really shoddy article: It is in a "small caps" newsletter, mentions a couple specific small cap mining companies, and does not provide any sources for the assertion that China will build 150 nuclear power plants. It just jumps to "Buy these stonks."

newaccount2021 5y ago

that's fine, our new trillion+ infrastructure bill will enable the government to extend 25mbps broadband to a dozen rural schools, repave approximately four miles of roads, six miles of new sidewalks, and another lease on life for Califorinia HSR so they can finally bring rail to Turlock bridges are out, that would have required another two trillion

danny_codes 5y ago
I feel you. The mainstream approach to industrial policy and infrastructure investment in the US is so embarrassing. It's painfully obvious that the US could sink 10s of trillions into infrastructure without over-investing. And infrastructure is almost always net-positive, meaning it pays for itself. We can literally just print money to do this and the economy will _improve_.

DeathArrow 5y ago

20 years ago I thought we are on the verge of cracking the fusion process and are about to get very cheap energy. 20 years later we still use not so efficient fision technology.

pfdietz 5y ago
In what sense are you using the word "efficient" here, and why does that sense matter?

PaulHoule 5y ago

There is that alternate timeline where the US built the 500 reactors we were planning to build by 2000 and in which, in 2021, global warming was seen as a minor issue rather than a "climate crisis".

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
uhtred 5y ago
Any idea why didn't the US keep to that plan?
- leesec 5y ago
  Nixon left.
- deathcalibur 5y ago
  I’m guessing Three Mile Island + Chernobyl. Maybe start here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the...
  - trimbo 5y ago
    I long thought that the simultaneous release of "The China Syndrome" and TMI led to public fear of nuclear power (TMI happened two weeks after the movie debuted!). But apparently people have studied this and these disasters really didn't have a major effect -- public sentiment generally stayed the same around the time of the accidents[1] [1] - This link only covers Chernobyl and Fukushima: https://www.ans.org/news/article-321/new-polls-show-substantial-support-for-nuclear-energy/ https://www.ans.org/news/article-321/new-polls-show-substant...
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    The passage of PURPA in 1978 had a bigger effect. Suddenly utilities were opened to competition. Combined with a slowdown in growth of electric power demand and the window closed on new nuclear.

dharmaturtle 5y ago

Previous discussion, 5 days ago (20 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29094422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29094422

holonomically 5y ago

Meanwhile the US is focusing on renewables. This is not going well for the US.

ActionHank 5y ago

$100 says China makes deals to store the waste in Africa.

Accujack 5y ago
I'll take this. They don't need to store the waste anywhere other than their own land, there's not going to be that much of it.
- Tenoke 5y ago
  They've indeed just opened a facility for reusing nuclear waste locally[0] though in all fairness they have stored some waste in Sudan before[1]. 0. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234033.shtml https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234033.shtml 1. https://www.dabangasudan.org/en/all-news/article/official-china-buried-nuclear-waste-in-sudan-s-desert https://www.dabangasudan.org/en/all-news/article/official-ch...
laluser 5y ago
Is the waste really that large? I was under the impression that the waste was rather manageable.
- dr-detroit 5y ago
  Putin is the richest person on earth because of the money Germany pays him to dump nuclear waste in the urals.
- chomp 5y ago
  It's not, storage is mostly a logistical and political problem. Logistical in the sense that the storage needs to be secure on timelines longer than a few generations. Political in the sense that no one wants it in their back yard. Low level waste is the largest by volume by the way, so mostly not related to nuclear reactors.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago

robomartin 5y ago

I have been saying this for quite some time: The future vision of an all-electric ground transportation system is between impossible and untenable without a massive scale-up in nuclear energy generation in places like the US. Years ago, as I was trying to understand the reality of electric vehicles, among other things, I put together a model that simulates a fleet of 300 million electric vehicles charging across our various time zones. The model accounts for various percentages of vehicles slow charging overnight (typical at-home charging scenario) and the balance fast-charging. The model uses Tesla charging data (rate of charge, energy requirements, miles per kWh, etc.). The result indicated we need 900 to 1400 GW in order to support a full transition to electric charging. This is IN ADDTION TO what we produce today, which is in the order of 1200 GW. In other words, we need to ADD capacity, we can't magic-wand our way into this reality. In essence, we have to produce the effective energy provided today by gasoline and diesel. By this I mean, once you account for efficiency, the bottom line is gasoline/diesel are used to move a certain mass of vehicles a certain distance in a certain time every day. Whatever is required to do the same with electrics, that's what we need. This is new energy, we can't pull it out of the existing infrastructure. And, speaking of infrastructure, it is important that this is, in many ways more about power than energy. Why? Because it takes power to charge N cars simultaneously in a given geographic region. Even if everyone slow-charges, the time period is finite, say, 8 hours max. This still translates to a requirement for power. The energy is what fills the bucket. Power is how fast you fill it. With so many vehicles plugged in at the same time, you need power over a reasonable period of time. Our grid cannot currently handle such a step change in power transportation. To put it simply: We need larger pipes. This could also mean we need far more than the 900 to 1400 GW I think we do. That is because you have to deliver power, not energy over 24 hours. Solar? No. Not really. It can help, but, at scale, at the scale we need, I think I can very easily make the argument that if the goal is to have clean energy, solar at this scale is far from clean. I can't even imagine the billions of batteries we would need. And then, every N years, you have to deal with recycling or disposing of them. This isn't a simple problem at all. Yet nuclear is, in my opinion, the ONLY technology that can actually deliver on a future vision of an all-electric transportation system. Here's the problem: I don't know about Europe. In the US, in the time it would take us to build a single nuclear reactor (30 years?), China will likely build 300 of them, if not more. The efficiency and focus with which they execute on the obvious plan to achieve economic and technical superiority across the board is nothing less than awe-inspiring. While our politicians burn clock cycles with stupid power games and nonsense, China wakes up every day and puts one foot in front of the other. The only way to think of this is that they deserve the success they have achieved through hard work, focus and perhaps the most impressive national-scale entrepreneurial drive in the history of humanity. I work with Chinese companies (as suppliers in the context of manufacturing) every day. The difference between us and them is absolutely unimaginable to anyone who isn't in this business. All I can say is that, if people in the West don't wake up and start voting for politicians who actually know what they fuck they are doing, the story of what's ahead isn't a good one. Notice that I am not identifying any specific party. In fact, a good starting point would be to fire almost everyone in government and bring in new blood with a new mandate. I better stop here. I get too worked-up about this stuff. It pains me to see so many hard-working people suffer because the people in command of the ship are constantly engaged in power games and bullshit and ignore the fact that the boat is filling with water and will eventually sink.

coolspot 5y ago

Also, reactors are necessary to make weapon-grade isotopes.

bsedlm 5y ago
sometimes I think that this is a much bigger reason for nuclear electricity than anybody would ever publicly admit. to the point that if you remove all apperances (politics, marketing, etc) this is THE biggest drive behind the push to nuclear
- jjk166 5y ago
  Not really, while yes any nuclear reactor could in theory be used to produce weapons grade material, in practice designs optimized for plutonium breeding are radically different from power generating plants. Further, you don't need nuclear reactors for weapons material production, you can just enrich uranium. In fact, enriching uranium in sufficient quantity for reactors actually requires significantly larger and more expensive set ups than would be needed for weapons production. There might be some small states that want to disguise their weapons programs as peaceful power generation programs, but for countries like China and the US which are already well known to possess such weapons, there's really no incentive.
- danny_codes 5y ago
  I fail to see how this is relevant. China can already make nuclear weapons and presumably has a MAD amount. Nobody needs more than a couple hundred thermonuclear weapons, there's nothing left to hit with the next 100.
erentz 5y ago
10 countries with nuclear weapons. 2 of which don’t have nuclear power. 35 countries with nuclear power. 27 of which don’t have nuclear weapons.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

wolverine876 5y ago

I don't understand why people are focusing on nuclear now, and not 5 years ago or 10 years ago. What has changed? If I understand correctly, technology hasn't changed. People want nuclear because either they don't think renewables can scale up quickly enough or because of the base load problem (renewables can't always provide energy on demand). Has any of that changed? Renewables generally are cheaper and have more scale now. If we'd started 10 years ago, we might have some plants coming online soon.

99_00 5y ago
>What has changed? Wind and solar were rolled out at state and national scale.
LatteLazy 5y ago
People forgot the last set of nuclear boondogels. Nothing sells a pyramid scheme like 10 years without one...
cbsmith 5y ago
I mean... the technology has changed, but it is hard to argue that it has changed in a way that makes the decision different.
liuliu 5y ago
Because China encountered major setback on their nuclear ambitions due to the US ban (China was previous planning to use US technology for their nuclear plants). It took a few years (>5) for them to mature domestic technology and scale up nuclear plants.
Gwypaas 5y ago
It is the last death throes of an industry coupled with some tech minded people thinking it's controversial and cool, even though the tech in reality is old and boring. The "silver bullet" to fix climate change, much like we saw with all manner of things last year with Covid. The one chance to revive nuclear power in the west through Virgil C. Summer, Vogtle, Hinkley Point C, Flammanville and Olkiluoto 3 failed miserably with several of the major players now bankrupt. China keeps dipping it's toes in nuclear to keep the option open but no real commitment, and this announcement of 150 reactors is no real change to the long term plans either. In 2019, China had a new target of 200 GWe of nuclear generating capacity by 2035, which is 7.7% out of predicted total electricity generating capacity of 2600 GWe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China So with about 50 GWe from 50 reactors today adding another 150 gives you the same goal of about 200 GWe.

nabla9 5y ago

Nuclear reactor manufacturing is not a simple thing to ramp up quickly. China is buying reactors from the US, France, Russia, and they have their own designs. They need to reserve pretty much all manufacturing capacity that exists and add more.

baybal2 5y ago

> Uranium race Are you sure it's not a "Plutonium race?" China is the nation with the fastest growing nuclear arsenal today.

FooBarWidget 5y ago
China should reduce their stockpile to 1/3rd of US's.
- dragonelite 5y ago
  I see what you did there :p

skmurphy 5y ago

This is good news if they follow through. Likely to have a number of beneficial effects directly in China and as follow on effects globally.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

If it gets them to shut down their coal plants, great. And I think that actually is the primary motivation. They need lots of power and they need to stop killing their citizens with smog from coal (as well as our planet). I think it will cost them financially though. This won't come cheap. Half a trillion for about 1200 GW of capacity is a lot and not necessarily the best value for money. However, they have about that amount of coal to replace as well. The issue with wind and solar is that we're only adding in the order of a few hundred GW per year. China needs an order of magnitude more just to get rid of coal. The interesting thing will be if production capacity for wind turbines and solar panels will grow quickly enough to make this investment unnecessary. One order of magnitude increase in production capacity would do the trick. Not trivial; and China is already going as fast as it can with this. But also not impossible. It's going to be a close race. China might simply be betting on multiple horses here; which is the smart thing to do. I don't think they are picking winners here; just losers. Which would be coal. It needs to go, hence the need to fix 1000+ GW of power demand while also accounting for continued economic growth. They aren't ready to commit to that at COP 26 just yet. But the timing of this announcement is no coincidence either. Another horse in the race would be fusion. Apparently there is some serious money flowing into some companies now. Helion just did a 500M series E: https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/05/helion-energy-will-use-500m-series-e-to-power-up-its-fusion-energy-efforts/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/05/helion-energy-will-use-500.... That may or may not work but it's kind of a really big deal if that hits commercial viability this decade rather than in 2050. And as the US has less of a coal problem at this point (most of it will be gone by the middle of this decade), nuclear is less urgent as a solution. And unlike nuclear, fusion actually might have a shot at being cost competitive with other renewables. Helion is pitching 0.01$/kwh. That's the right level of ambition here.

flavius29663 5y ago
Excuse my ignorance, but where did you get the 500 billion price tag? And why do you say it's expensive? It's rather cheap. People keep saying how solar is the cheapest capacity to install, at 1 dollar per Watt. 1200 GW would be 1.2 trillions, and only offering around 240GW "constant" production, whereas nuclear is half the price to build but more like 1000 GW constant production

cletus 5y ago

Good for China. I hope it works out for them. China seems politically stable and already has nuclear weapons so there's really no additional risk here. I'm happy to sit back and learn from their mistakes. I'm honestly surprised at the rose-coloured glasses many on HN view nuclear with. Like even if the US was all-nuclear, the change in global emissions wouldn't be that high because the US accounts for <20% of global emissions and probably only a quarter of that is from power generation. But here's another factor: if the US wasn't a consumer of fossil fuels, the only thing that changes is it becomes cheaper for everyone else and that probably increases consumption to the point where the emissions are near net-neutral. And for that we have a bunch of reactors with terrible failure modes and unanswered questions about long-term reprocessing and/or storage of enrichment byproducts, the same for waste and we'd need to trust governments and corporations to manage it all. The resistance to wearing a piece of fabric on your face while out in public by a significant portion of the population should tell you everything you need to know here: no amount of altruism will solve climate change. Economics will. My bet is the long term future here is solar not nuclear. That's a deep topic. Those pointing out that sometimes it's night aren't factoring in expected improvements in energy storage tech nor thinking long term enough. You put the collectors in space and eventually run transmission lines to the ground. And no, I'm not kidding. If you feel like going down this rabbit hole, look up orbital rings.

93po 5y ago
If people lose their minds at tiny specs of satellites used for musknet then imagine the outcry at this idea

eunos 5y ago

With all the renewed interest in Nuclear, do we have enough uranium reserve if say US, China, EU and India decided to go big on nuclear ?

korantu 5y ago
Fuel is miniscule part of nuclear energy cost. With increased demand it will be profitable to prospect for more, and uranium is not a rare element.

Daniel_sk 5y ago

Uranium stocks have been soaring since 2020, some have 10x gains already. Check UUUU, DNN or if you want ETF then maybe URNM.

bduerst 5y ago
Are these holdings? Mining companies? Production?

rllearneratwork 5y ago

apparently China chose to lead the future.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Maybe something like this will inspire the US to do something similar.

ngcc_hk 5y ago

A better Soviet Union is still a Soviet Union. Totalitarian success is not human environmental friendly.

phtrivier 5y ago

Yeah, great. We all forgot how to do nuclear in western démocraties because we were afraid of accidents and did not trust indépendant oversight. Now all the nuclear plants will be in state-controlled dictatorships with a disdain for truth. But I'm pretty sure Greenpeace will organize mediatized flash mobs in tienenman square, sure ? What could possibly go wrong ?

perryizgr8 5y ago

It seems China figures out what's the best thing to do, and then just does it. There's no doubts or unnecessary debate about it. It has been clear to anyone who is paying attention that nuclear power (even fission) is vastly superior to every other method in the long term. It is cleaner than coal/gas, more reliable than solar/wind, less environmentally disruptive than hydro. Then why isn't everybody doing it? At least the countries with the know-how should be all in on it. USA, Germany, Japan, India, France, all of these should be building a hundred new reactors every year. But instead we are sitting on our assess while China marches on.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

afroboy 5y ago

In case of war those are really weak points for china, "In case of war".

Tade0 5y ago

If my estimates about the reactor size are correct, they're just going to make nuclear keep up with solar in terms of additional GWh delivered annually by the newly build plants, so it's less a focus on nuclear and more a diversification of their mix.

natmaka 5y ago

As far as I know China didn't announce anything. Where is the official announcement? The source is a Bloomberg article ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli... ) which states that the boss of Chine General Power corp. announced his plans 200GW for 2035, nothing more. Admitting that it is an official governmental announcement (it doesn't seem so(?)) and given that China already has 50GW, that's maybe 100GW new (way less than 150 standard reactors). Compare with renewables: 790GW already running (26% of the gridpower), and 1200GW planned for 2030. In 2020 China added 71,6GW windturbine power. Even considering the load factors the picture is pretty clear. Complements: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2021-HTML.html#_idTextAnchor021 https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industr... https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2021-HTML.html#_idTextAnchor175 https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industr... (Thanks to Y. Marignac for part of the data)