The construction of three pairs of Hualong One (HPR1000) reactors at the Jinqimen, Taipingling and Zhuanghe sites, as well as two Guohe One (CAP1400) reactors at the Laiyang site was approved during a State Council executive meeting chaired by Chinese Premier Li Qiang on 31 July.  ;
      • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlM
        15·
        22 days ago

        I don’t care what kind of reactor it is, as long as it works. I think all scientific avenues should be explored and a diversity of technologies and fuel types should be used.

      • Malkhodr @lemmygrad.ml
        8·
        21 days ago

        Thorium is cool and all but a little overhyped in my honest opinion. It’s possible to make an entirely closed fuel cycle through recycling used fuel, and I’m aware that Russia us currently working on a plant with that exact goal in mind. Not to mention that Uranium is relatively plentiful and more can be obtained from sea water, which China has massively improved upon.

        As much as I may love Molten Salt Reactors, which is what Thorium reactors largely are, the corrosive nature of those salts is what makes them less viable. It’s a material science problem currently being solved, and I believe China has created a operational one.

        Plus, I’ll always have my heart set on High-Temperature Gas Reactors (HTGR) which use helium or Carbon Dioxide as a coolant rather than molten salts. Specially I think Pebble Bed Reactors are the most ingenious, as they manage to solve an issue the nuclear sector has had for decades, that being the ability to refuel without turning off the Reactor for like a 2 weeks to a month. Just pop one of the fuel pebbles in, and take the used ones out, and you’re all good. Not to mention the pebbles themselves acting like an extra level of containment for waste.

        Sorry I don’t hate Thorium Reactors or anything, I just find them to be overhyped. Which, among nuclear engineers, you will see quite often. Thorium enthusiasts are, disparagingly, referred to the hipsters/vegans of nuclear science, mainly because an Thorium enthusiast will tell you they are one without you asking. Mind you, it’s a crude expression but it’s the common phrase thrown around.

        • Maeve @lemmygrad.ml
          3·
          21 days ago

          Nuke just makes me nervous in general. I’m not sure what happened at Fukushima (I’ve read corners were cut in safety precautions, but who really knows, without being an insider)? Perhaps you can talk sense to me and alleviate my (probably?) irrational fears?

          • Malkhodr @lemmygrad.ml
            5·
            20 days ago

            I’m not one for argumentation, but I’ll try my best and you can tell me where your fears still lie.

            I’d argue that the millions of people globally affected by carbon emissions, due to the burning of fossils fuels, is quantifiably higher than rare localized nuclear disasters. A nuclear disaster, which are becoming more rare as the technology improves, is one that can be somewhat tracked at have its effects more thoroughly understood based on analysis of a person’s radiation dosage. Whereas, the effects of increased greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere are much harder to individually assign risk.

            I guess think of it this way, an area effected by nuclear fallout can be evacuated in a worse case scenario. It’s not possible to escape the consequences of polluting our own atmosphere. This isn’t even mentioning the effects of climate change itself which are already numerous and exstistentionally dangerous.

            I say all this before getting into actually debunking many of the fears around nuclear power because I think it’s important to see the full picture. The world needs power production and renewables, though rapidly improving, do not fit every niche, and nuclear us able to replace basload power supplies across the world more efficiently as of now and for the foreseeable future.

            So if the choice is removing as much fossil fuels from our power production using nuclear as a part of that process is not a matter of what is preferable or ideal, but a matter of what mitigates the most risk.

            This is all taking into account the worst case scenario for nuclear fallout which isn’t an outcome that is most common.

            Hundreds of nuclear plants exist globally, and you could probably name the amount of large scale disasters on one hand (not acounting for non-power plant related radiation disasters, but those have nothing to power production, and are more associated with medical radiation equipment/material).

            I’m unfortunately not very educated on the specifics of Fukushima, though I can say that efforts to restore it to livable status have actually progressed quite far from over a decade ago, Chernobyl has had some improvement but to a lesser degree.

            In the case of Fukushima, what happened from my knowledge is that a the Reactor was a Gen 2 Boiling Water Reactor (ie, old and not equipped with the more modern safety systems that current gen 3, 3+, and 4, reactors are equipped with) lost its external power supply due to the earthquake and Tsunami, and no one was able to fix the issue before the back up dieseal generators gave out since the natural dusaster wrought o much devastation.

            Gen 3 reactors were a technical improvement on Gen 2 reactors due to having passive safety systems that don’t require activation. So no one needs to press a button that activates the emergency pumps nor does the reactor need an external power supply for the safety systems. All modern reactors being built today are Gen 3 at least due to their technical improvements from the previous generation.

            Gen 3+ and Gen 4 reactors are even more incredible in their designs, and I could gush over the specifics of a few of them, but I’d rather not fill this comment with jargon. To put it simply, Gen 3+ are reactors that take the Gen 3 designs to a greater extreme when creating passive safety systems, relying on fundamental properties of physics as well as clever engineering. Gen 4s take it further by using different kinds of coolant besides water (steam) to transfer heat, since water must be pressurized to be used, and the expansion of water to steam is what leads to the explosions you see from nuclear meltdowns.

            Note

            Those explosions are the rapid expansion of water to steam, leading to potential hydrogen explosions as well, NOT the process that produces nuclear explosions by nuclear bombs. That requires an enrichment of over at least 90% fissile material, nuclear reactors only operate at 3% usually, or a little over 20% for some modular designs, and like maybe 60% for breeder reactors, but those aren’t power reactors and are uses to create fuel. Also reactors just aren’t built to create the kind of chain reaction needed to produce nuclear explosion, it’s physically impossible. Making a nuclear bomb is not something you can do by accident, it’s very deliberately engineered to work.

            This means Gen 4s are using coolant like molten salts, helium, carbondioxide, etc. Materials that are eitheir already gaseous in their natural state (in the case of High Temperature Gas Reactors) so there’s no threat of rapid expansion like with water/steam, or in the case of molten salts, the temperature needed to transform them from liquid to gas is so high it’s impossible for a nuclear reactor to achieve (think of trying to turn Lead into a gas, it’s basically impossible for any temperature achievable on earth). If you’re interested in the exact mechanics of these kinds of reactors, I can further explain them to the best of my ability or find some resources that are easy to comprehend foe a layman (I’m not gonna link you one of my textbooks so don’t worry, it’ll probably be a YouTube video or an easy to digest article).

            I’ve come to find that the biggest driver of fear towards nuclear power is a misunderstanding of how these technologies work. My best suggestion is to familiarize yourself with these concepts, as they become a lot less scary once you have a grasp on how they function. As someone who grew up fascinated by the different sciences, it made learning about these kinds of things a lot easier, but honestly I think a lot of the reason people feel intimidated is due to bad communication on the part of educators regarding the wonders of our universe and how it functions.

            Please reply with any questions you have, and I’ll attempt to answer to the best of my ability.

            • Maeve @lemmygrad.ml
              2·
              20 days ago

              Firstly, thank you for taking the time to type a thoughtful and thorough reply. It’s easy more than I expected, and I’m appreciative of your time and effort.

              So if the choice is removing as much fossil fuels from our power production using nuclear as a part of that process is not a matter of what is preferable or ideal, but a matter of what mitigates the most risk.

              The hook.

              I’ve come to find that the biggest driver of fear towards nuclear power is a misunderstanding of how these technologies work. My best suggestion is to familiarize yourself with these concepts, as they become a lot less scary once you have a grasp on how they function.

              Well then, at your leisure, please link to YouTube or peertube (even tankietube) videos, or eli5 - type articles, because being ignorant of jargon and facts, it will probably be the most expeditious route to remedying that malady. Another growth experience, but I can drop the expletive, at least until you post a “for dummies” vid that’s still over my head (and you are most assuredly way over my head, here. Nonetheless, no need to let grasp exceed reach).

              As someone who grew up fascinated by the different sciences, it made learning about these kinds of things a lot easier, but honestly I think a lot of the reason people feel intimidated is due to bad communication on the part of educators regarding the wonders of our universe and how it functions.

              To be honest, I’m not sure a lot of them were well-equipped, although I’ve had some really tough teachers that I adored, that most despised (and a lot I also despised, but irrelevant). I admired the ones who knew the subject and refused to give up on us, or give us an easy pass (in short, made it interesting, if not fun).

              To put it simply, Gen 3+ are reactors that take the Gen 3 designs to a greater extreme when creating passive safety systems, relying on fundamental properties of physics as well as clever engineering.

              So low (I’m loathe to use “no,” but what do I know?) likelihood of failure?

              What happens if there’s an accident with molten salt, like a leak? Can poorer states afford these projects without expensive imf loans and if not, will the United States block Chinese or other BRICS funding (was I aware the UAE is a member now, and forgot?!)?

              My understanding is thorium still presents unacceptable risks: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/chapter/edited-volume/abs/pii/B9780323952354000098

              I’d probably not like to be the worker mining or processing it, but I’m imagining things like this: https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-radiation-exposure-compensation-act-reca/ (I know people affected, and it’s horrible).

              Admittedly, the US government knew the risks were more severe than they disclosed, so this is my first concern, not the only concern. I’m not imagining other nations with a Western sympathy would be much better, with disclosure, but again, I could be wrong.

              These questions are pretty basic already, are you sure you want to open the door to even more dumb questions?

              Thanks again, at any rate. Still recalling you having said you will further your education; I hope it’s looking possible without a lot of debt, with good fortune, even scholarships.

              • Malkhodr @lemmygrad.ml
                2·
                20 days ago

                Well then, at your leisure, please link to YouTube or peertube (even tankietube) videos, or eli5 - type articles, because being ignorant of jargon and facts, it will probably be the most expeditious route to remedying that malady.

                I’ll start with two playlists, and pick out some videos from there:

                Nuclear Power Playlist - Illinois Energy Professor

                Radiation Playlist - Illinois Energy Professor

                This professor does a great job at simplifying concepts and I think every Nuclear science student has used him as a resource. His video of China’s nuclear industry is also good for a novice, and it’s shockingly unbiased from an American engineer.

                Here are some videos from the playlist to help explain the concepts:

                Sorry if I just provided you with a bunch of homework but I tried my best to be discriminating. That channel has significantly more resources if you’re interested but I’m not sure if you’re as much of a massive fucking nerd as I am, as I’ve probably binged the channel years ago and would happily do it again.

                So low (I’m loathe to use “no,” but what do I know?) likelihood of failure?

                It’s good to use the term low rather than no. Although, I’d say yes, they have a very low chance of failure, I would also have to provide an asterisks and ask “what constitutes failure?”

                If you mean “can the reactors have a meltdown?” like gen 2 and older reactors, then I’d have to say there’s not really a conceivable way I can think of that happening. Besides like, a facility being bombed, which isn’t a meltdown at all, but could spread Radioactive material, than it’s safe to say that Gen 3 reactors and beyond aren’t able to do that on their own due to their designs terminating the Nuclear chain reaction upon the absence of a coolant.

                Now if you mean that the reactors can experience pipe damage or internal leaks, then that’s more than possible. It’s not exactly a frequent occurrence but it’s not uncommon for it to happen in a reactors lifetime. Though, things like that don’t really effect outside the facility, as those mechanisms need to be kept internal to a reactor facility to actually work. Not to mention that Gen 4 and some Gen 3+ reactors usually have all their components within their reactor vessels. (Things like the pressurized, and steam generator are outside the reactor vessel in Gen 3 and prior reactors)

                Gen 3 Reactor Diagram Example (Pressurized Water Reactor)

                Advanced Reactor Diagram Example (Pebble Bed Reactor)

                What happens if there’s an accident with molten salt, like a leak? Can poorer states afford these projects without expensive imf loans and if not, will the United States block Chinese or other BRICS funding (was I aware the UAE is a member now, and forgot?!)?

                Well the facility will have a corrosive molten mess to clean up, but the reactor will stop operating. A molten salt reactor can’t continue its chain reaction without the coolant, as is the case for all Gen 4 reactors. It gets more complicated, and has to do with how the expansion and contraction of molten salt changes the distance between fuel from the reactor moderator (thing that slows neutrons down so they can create a chain reaction). The geometry of a reactor is very important, and if it shifts then a reaction just won’t be able to occur.

                In regards to Global South countries being able to afford Gen 4 reactors, that’s not something I could comment on. It really depends on how willing China is to do technology transfer to Global South countries. However, China and Russia are already building Gen 3 and I believe some 3+ reactors for some Global South countries. I believe India is doing so as well do their credit (the Indian nuclear industry isn’t very bad at all, and I hope to see them more involved in the Global South power policies).

                The US is going to be a pain the the multipolar world’s ass forever (though honestly, the US could actually provide very good support for nuclear development across the Global South, unfortunately the political will is set on empire), however thongs like BRICS are important because of the fact that they’re independent of the Western order. The UAE is actually building a lot of nuclear, and many western scientists go there for work. I myself considered it before last year, but determined “I’m not getting bombed for Gulf monarchs” and I guess my capacity for prescience is well honed.

                In regards to the risks of thorium and the risks of Uranium mining, I think it’s important to remember that renewable energy sources also require the mining of minerals that can be extremely toxic. Not to mention the toxic nature of batteries after they’re no longer useful. This isn’t to diminish this concern, as it obviously is important, but I want to say it’s not exactly unique to nuclear compared to other emerging green technologies.

                In both cases, they are less damaging to the global majority then rampant fossil fuel usage and climate change.

                These questions are pretty basic already, are you sure you want to open the door to even more dumb questions?

                Shoot, I’ll try to answer to the best of my ability, though I also suggest just looking up questions on YouTube first if you can.

                Thanks again, at any rate. Still recalling you having said you will further your education; I hope it’s looking possible without a lot of debt, with good fortune, even scholarships.

                I’m still sorting things out, but I’m looking at my options. Still need to deal with my institution being obtuse, but it’s going along better than before.

                • TankieReplyBot@lemmygrad.mlB
                  2·
                  20 days ago

                  I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

                  Link 1:

                  Link 2:

                  Link 3:

                  Link 4:

                  Link 5:

                  Link 6:

                  Link 7:

                  Link 8:

                  Link 9:

                  Link 10:

                • Maeve @lemmygrad.ml
                  1·
                  19 days ago

                  Please forgive an abridged reply, after you worked so hard to provide this answer. You deserve better, but I have a social obligation, later.

                  Sorry if I just provided you with a bunch of homework but I tried my best to be discriminating. That channel has significantly more resources if you’re interested but I’m not sure if you’re as much of a massive fucking nerd as I am, as I’ve probably binged the channel years ago and would happily do it again…

                  Shoot, I’ll try to answer to the best of my ability, though I also suggest just looking up questions on YouTube first if you can.

                  No apology needed, that is perfect! I will watch the videos at my leisure, which may be also abridged, after finally being able to see a specialist, this week. Perhaps I will be sent straight to work, perhaps straight to rehab, perhaps both or neither, but I’m grateful for the appointment.

                  I have planned to watch, and make a running list of questions as they arise; apologies for not being clear. That’s why I asked if you really want to open that door. Please firmly and clearly let me know if I become a nuisance. I tend to fixate on things for a while that capture my interest, according to my personal capacity for, and level of comprehension.

                  This isn’t to diminish this concern, as it obviously is important, but I want to say it’s not exactly unique to nuclear compared to other emerging green technologies.

                  USians, including myself, really haven’t sufficient understanding nor appreciation, of the suffering and sacrifices for the necessities we take for granted, let alone the conveniences. The collapse is going to be more emotionally difficult, I suppose, for the more comfortable.

                  I’m still sorting things out, but I’m looking at my options. Still need to deal with my institution being obtuse, but it’s going along better than before.

                  I’m glad you’re seeing some progress, and felt inclined to share. I didn’t want to pry. It’s never been far from my heart and mind. I care deeply for your well-being, comrade, physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually. I feel blessed to interact with you. Thank you for the gift of insight and a glimpse of the passion and compassion, you embody. It’s more than we deserve.

    • Maeve @lemmygrad.ml
      3·
      21 days ago

      Appreciate this post, it gives me some idea how to better appreciate and apprehend some of your posts. As I age and evolve, while I may never truly approximate your approach, I may grow more the general direction.

      The Cori Bush post, btw, was because I want to connect with people who chose genocide over genocide and theft, when they feel obliged to participate.

      • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlM
        4·
        20 days ago

        The Cori Bush post, btw, was because I want to connect with people who chose genocide over genocide and theft, when they feel obliged to participate.

        Which is absolutely legitimate. My point was not that we should not engage with people who come to anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist politics through realizing the limits of electoralism. My point was that you should never play defense when reactionaries and liberals make attacks against you or your ideological or situational allies. You do not want to ever find yourself in a situation where you are put on the defensive and forced to explain or apologize.

        It doesn’t even really matter where you stand on whether you think that these types of candidates are a net good or just another distraction and way to divert people from revolutionary politics into bourgeois electoralism. Here’s why:

        If you think that these progressive anti-genocide candidates are tactically useful allies, then you shouldn’t engage with accusations against them. Don’t let the enemy choose the battleground. Instead go on the offense and hammer home the points that you and they stand for. Offense is the best defense. Defend by attacking the liberals and the reactionaries, highlighting their hypocrisies, and the fact that they have no leg to stand on to criticize anyone when they support genocide and are the footstools of capital.

        If you think that these candidates are just capitalist reformists and imperialism with a progressive face, then it goes without saying that you gain nothing from defending them. Let them fall and use the opportunity to draw their supporters to more radical politics.

        Either way, you see, it’s like i said: it doesn’t matter what the details of the scandal are.

        • Maeve @lemmygrad.ml
          3·
          20 days ago

          Let them fall and use the opportunity to draw their supporters to more radical politics.

          They seem to be doubling down on genocide.

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    18·
    22 days ago

    Check out the Commies, spending their money on improving the lives of their people, instead of bombing civilians all over the world. LOSERS!

    /S, because you really never know these days.

    They’re going to dominate the world without ever firing a shot, while we go bankrupt trying convince the world that MAGAs don’t have tiny dicks.