This is a main selling point of having a high proportion of your politicians having an engineering background. They will have an understanding of technical subjects and more willingness to authorize technical projects, unlike lawyer based government in the West.
Not just that, Chinese politicians also understand what key technologies (or even whole companies) to prioritize buying or stealing from the West, like EV and battery tech, renewables, networking, robotics, AI and semiconductors.
While German politicians still ask for the internet to be printed for them.
Maybe for state-backed projects. That "lawyer-based" government means very strong and predictable rules that protect investments. It starts with property law. People building big things, thing bigger than skyscrapers, want strong ownership rights enforced by a responsive legal system. The west has that. China does not. Protecting fixed assets in placed like China or Egypt means keeping politicians and soldiers on side, most often by giving the government a large ownership stake in the project. That limits innovation. That limits mobility.
This is apparantly one of the reasons actions around the ozone hole got broad support. Margaret Thatcher had been a chemist before getting into politics, she understood the science that was being presented to her when the issue first became apparant. She was able to convince Reagan that this was a real issue that was going to affect us all and was something we could fix. Obviously there were lots of other factors at play (there were technical solutions that were largely ready to adopt), but it helped.
I often wonder how different things might be right now if Al Gore had been a well known republican, whether acceptance of anthropogenic climate change wouldn't have been such a political issue, or if all the other forces at work would have been the same.
> This is a main selling point of having a high proportion of your politicians having an engineering background.
At what price for democracy and for human rights? And how is China progressing on transitioning to renewable energy? Hint: it doesn't [0].
(Not that western lawyer-led nations do better...)
Having promised a reduction of 65% by 2030 [1], I guess they do count on those nuclear projects working out in the end, but at their scale and with 85% of their energy consumption coming from fossil fuels [2], they do seem to have their work cut out for them.
Although wanting to agree, it just isn't clear that it is a sustainable advantage. America has traditionally crushed opponents by having a small aggressive government on top of a large, free & wealthy population. If someone competes with the US by having a more competent government that is only exceeding the US in the area where it is weakest.
The best nuclear engineer in the Chinese government isn't going up against the US political establishment, they are facing off against people like Bill Gates or the US nuclear industry's Elon Musk equivalent. Although the US population isn't as relatively wealthy as they once were so the traditional strategy might not work out.
China seems to be the only country still exploring new nuclear fission technologies commercialization at government level. In the US and other western countries it is mostly by commercial companies so I feel China probably will take the lead in nuclear in the next few decades. As this requires decades long planning and commercial companies are unable to work unless they get quick results. I previously submitted about China's plan to convert nuclear waste to glass for easier storage. So China seems to have planned to use a lot of nuclear power in the future and has also made plans for storing the nuclear waste.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28507599
This could be good for the world when it comes to climate change, nuclear being the most powerful way to cut emissions and China being one of the biggest polluters right now.
This assumes that Chinese nuclear producers follow all the rules strictly and there is no corruption involved. The Japanese people lost their trust in the government and companies to keep things safe, which is what killed the industry in that country. While China isn’t going to face similar voter pressure, one accident like Fukushima could make things really chaotic quickly.
Germany also has a state backed research program. This, however, has been cut after Fukushima and the political decision to not rely on nuclear energy anymore. People got scared, understandable, hence, the decision back than had a huge support.
China is a technocratic autocracy. Although they rely on the approval of the masses, they can plan long term, instead from election to election. And they calculate whether it's worth or not to manipulate the public opinion on certain topics.
This is a 2 MWt research reactor. The US operated a 7.5 MWt molten salt thorium fueled reactor at ORNL from 1964-1969; I wouldn't consider the technology new.
I’m not sure the race between government entities and the private sector always favors the former, even when it comes to R&D. A prime (no pun intended) example of that is the race to sequence the human genome.
Couldn't you say something very similar about space?
> In the US and other western countries it is mostly by commercial companies
> this requires decades long planning and commercial companies are unable to work unless they get quick results.
and yet that didn't stop SpaceX from leapfrogging entire nation-states in rocket technology, being the first to develop fully reusable rockets that land themselves, and as a result, are by far the cheapest option for launching things like commercial satellites.
I don't see why commercial companies can't accomplish similar things in the nuclear power space.
> As this requires decades long planning and commercial companies are unable to work unless they get quick results.
There are western startups working on thorium powered molten salt reactors, see this 2019 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps8oi_HY35E, from another comment in this thread [1].
In France as well with the caveat that the French government is constrained by EU subsidies laws and political risk (nuclear energy is a political risk), not to mention financing limitations as well.
> Molten-salt reactors are just one of many advanced nuclear technologies China is investing in. In 2002, an intergovernmental forum identified six promising reactor technologies to fast-track by 2030, including reactors cooled by lead or sodium liquids. China has programmes for all of them.
The west is so fucked. Meanwhile in the UK we’re reintroducing Imperial units, getting the UAE to invest in our infrastructure and fighting inane culture wars on Twitter.
The lack of proactivity and long term planning for things that matter, combined with academia’s lurch towards publishing treadmills instead of truly novel innovation means we are surely going to fall behind. At this point China’s future hegemony is all but assured.
Congratulations. You just discovered the simple fact of life that you can do everything much faster when you don't need half your population to agree on it and don't need to spend your whole focus on getting their approval to be reelected.
Good news. China will likely prove thorium reactors work and then sell them to other nations. US&EU will give lectures to the world on renewables and how terrible nuclear power is, yet will keep using their coal plants. Plans on shutting coal will keep moving indefinitely into the future - 2020, 2030, 2040, yadda
I hope they have acquired all the intellectual property for this like 5G. It's hilarious to see USA and UK deny access to chinese technology while trying to get around their intellectual property
More likely: China will pollute much of their countryside and waste billions on corruption and inefficiency. Also, China is polluting their air to a much higher degree than any western nation, and can't keep up with rising demand. Radioactive waste spilling into ground water would be a catastrophe.
Meanwhile, actual democracies can't place nuclear reactors and other facilities wherever they please. Citizens would object.
It's a shame that India hasn't jumped on the Thorium train. India has plenty of Thorium (some call India the "Saudi Arabia of Thorium"). India desperately needs to shut down its coal power plants and replace them with something safer (like a Thorium reactor)
> It's a shame that India hasn't jumped on the Thorium train.
I have been hearing about this all my life. And I don't think we will see any progress in our lifetimes. We have a cultural problem with over-promising and under-delivering regardless of who is in power.
We cannot even get regular nuclear power plants installed without interference from foreign NGOs interfering in Indian politics, local anti-nuclear fear-mongers and Christian churches.[1]
Very interesting. A potential safer and cheaper operating costs. A somewhat more complex design is required though.
The west need to focus on nuclear again to stay competitive. Too bad that we don't have true leaders anymore. But only people who are afraid to make choices and play it safe.
What happens if the CCP uses its dictator powers to rapidly transform China into a low-carbon economy and then starts leveraging the carbon credits system to heavily penalize and stymy western rivals?
Just read it and it seems obviously very impressive that they managed to switch from uranium to Thorium. But I do wonder how their trials of fusion reactors are going. Not too long ago there were breakthroughs in this tech. Perhaps if more work got put into this we could finally break the needed gap and produce more power that we put into it. Thus making it a viable and clean power source of the future.
[+] [-] dsq|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckNorris89|4 years ago|reply
While German politicians still ask for the internet to be printed for them.
[+] [-] sandworm101|4 years ago|reply
Maybe for state-backed projects. That "lawyer-based" government means very strong and predictable rules that protect investments. It starts with property law. People building big things, thing bigger than skyscrapers, want strong ownership rights enforced by a responsive legal system. The west has that. China does not. Protecting fixed assets in placed like China or Egypt means keeping politicians and soldiers on side, most often by giving the government a large ownership stake in the project. That limits innovation. That limits mobility.
[+] [-] noneeeed|4 years ago|reply
I often wonder how different things might be right now if Al Gore had been a well known republican, whether acceptance of anthropogenic climate change wouldn't have been such a political issue, or if all the other forces at work would have been the same.
[+] [-] nickff|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ciconia|4 years ago|reply
At what price for democracy and for human rights? And how is China progressing on transitioning to renewable energy? Hint: it doesn't [0].
(Not that western lawyer-led nations do better...)
Having promised a reduction of 65% by 2030 [1], I guess they do count on those nuclear projects working out in the end, but at their scale and with 85% of their energy consumption coming from fossil fuels [2], they do seem to have their work cut out for them.
[0] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-carbon-emissions... [1] https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/targets/ [2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...
[+] [-] roenxi|4 years ago|reply
The best nuclear engineer in the Chinese government isn't going up against the US political establishment, they are facing off against people like Bill Gates or the US nuclear industry's Elon Musk equivalent. Although the US population isn't as relatively wealthy as they once were so the traditional strategy might not work out.
[+] [-] xbmcuser|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anticodon|4 years ago|reply
It's also currently building 35 nuclear reactors around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov
[+] [-] brundolf|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 88840-8855|4 years ago|reply
China is a technocratic autocracy. Although they rely on the approval of the masses, they can plan long term, instead from election to election. And they calculate whether it's worth or not to manipulate the public opinion on certain topics.
[+] [-] yborg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] john_yaya|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KoftaBob|4 years ago|reply
> In the US and other western countries it is mostly by commercial companies
> this requires decades long planning and commercial companies are unable to work unless they get quick results.
and yet that didn't stop SpaceX from leapfrogging entire nation-states in rocket technology, being the first to develop fully reusable rockets that land themselves, and as a result, are by far the cheapest option for launching things like commercial satellites.
I don't see why commercial companies can't accomplish similar things in the nuclear power space.
[+] [-] hker|4 years ago|reply
There are western startups working on thorium powered molten salt reactors, see this 2019 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps8oi_HY35E, from another comment in this thread [1].
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28563477
[+] [-] credit_guy|4 years ago|reply
Maybe you should head over to the US Department of Energy website and take a look [1], [2].
[1] https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-reactor-technologies
[2] https://www.energy.gov/ne/our-budget
[+] [-] buzzwords|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LargoLasskhyfv|4 years ago|reply
[1] http://thebigpicturemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/...
from [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THX_1138 ?
[+] [-] mytailorisrich|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] faichai|4 years ago|reply
The west is so fucked. Meanwhile in the UK we’re reintroducing Imperial units, getting the UAE to invest in our infrastructure and fighting inane culture wars on Twitter.
The lack of proactivity and long term planning for things that matter, combined with academia’s lurch towards publishing treadmills instead of truly novel innovation means we are surely going to fall behind. At this point China’s future hegemony is all but assured.
[+] [-] lmilcin|4 years ago|reply
I just hope you understand what you wish for.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jjt-yn_t|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lenkite|4 years ago|reply
https://www.power-eng.com/coal/eia-u-s-coal-fired-generation...
https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/coal-ov...
[+] [-] slim|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cedilla|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natmaka|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bayesian_horse|4 years ago|reply
Meanwhile, actual democracies can't place nuclear reactors and other facilities wherever they please. Citizens would object.
[+] [-] DantesKite|4 years ago|reply
For all this talk about climate change dangers, the West is taking the most suboptimal approach.
[+] [-] BurningFrog|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1024core|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sinyug|4 years ago|reply
I have been hearing about this all my life. And I don't think we will see any progress in our lifetimes. We have a cultural problem with over-promising and under-delivering regardless of who is in power.
We cannot even get regular nuclear power plants installed without interference from foreign NGOs interfering in Indian politics, local anti-nuclear fear-mongers and Christian churches.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudankulam_Nuclear_Power_Plant
[+] [-] legulere|4 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
[+] [-] holoduke|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gravityloss|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tycho|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aembleton|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsimionescu|4 years ago|reply
The least of our problems is any country moving to carbon neutrality too early.
Unfortunately, China is nowhere near carbon neutrality, and is not really moving in that direction with any speed at the moment.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] semisober|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steeve|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chitowneats|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amai|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsjq|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hkt|4 years ago|reply
(Not a China spambot: just wish politicians weren't all the same)
[+] [-] andygroundwater|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amai|4 years ago|reply