Summary

China is rapidly surpassing the U.S. in nuclear energy, building more reactors at a faster pace and developing advanced technologies like small modular reactors and high-temperature gas-cooled units.

The U.S. struggles with costly, delayed projects, while China benefits from state-backed financing and streamlined construction.

This shift could make China the leading nuclear power producer within a decade, impacting global energy and geopolitical influence.

Meanwhile, the U.S. seeks to revive its nuclear industry, but trade restrictions and outdated infrastructure hinder progress.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    actually the US is developing small sized power plants. You saw in Ukraine what can happen if you rely on large plants.

  • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Nuclear energy has a long tail of recent and less recent horrors. These horrors affect the globe in their consequences and should give great pause, despite the passive meltdown aversion systems being implemented in modern reactors. Being slow to implement nuclear energy plants is a feature, not a bug.

    An important aside, humans generally have a problem with funding regulatory structures involved in keeping the public safe, constant vigilance gets an ax when budgets are manic. I certainly do not trust the US government to maintain regulatory pressure on nuclear power to keep the public safe from grave harm. Until the manic bipolarity of the current political climate subsides, this will be the case at the very least.

    FWIW, if it is not clear, I see absolutely no reason to trust China on nuclear energy regulation either.

    • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Including disasters like Chernobyl, nuclear energy causes several magnitudes less deaths than fossil fuels. It is utterly fucking insane for the concern to be “the horrors” of the three meltdowns you’re thinking of, of which the only one to kill or injure any civilians was Chernobyl. Fukushima did have some workers undergo significantly higher than usual radioactive doses - I invite you to contrast this with the mortality rate of, say, working on an oil rig.

      Fossil fuels are killing this planet before your very eyes. I am thrilled by the progress renewables are making, and small scale nuclear is quite likely the only new nuclear we would benefit from constructing these days. But we could have saved an ungodly amount of fossil fuels being burned and thus lives if it wasn’t for this argument.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Fukushima did have some workers undergo significantly higher than usual radioactive doses - I invite you to contrast this with the mortality rate of, say, working on an oil rig.

        Not injecting my own opinion in this thread of conversation, but if you’re expanding the scope to include oil rig worker adverse health effects, which introduces the fuel supply chain, then you need to also include the fuel supply chain health impacts and deaths with nuclear fuel extraction, such as the tens of thousands of uranium miners that have died digging out uranium.

        source1

        source2

      • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        In St. Louis, nuclear waste in a landfill has caused cancer in north county black and brown neighborhoods for decades.

        It is generally those who have not witnessed the ramifications of nuclear waste and/or disaster that are its proponents. Something that takes tens of thousands of years to decay, considering climate change, climate change catastrophe, movements in human population, and geologic change, we are full of hubris to consider it a green power option. But all the rose-tinted know-it-all tech bro will vote me down. Idgaf.