The Chinese Atom

[@phillipwatts7226]

Excellent interview great in-depth discussion of China nuclear industry

[@billcampbell1292]

Please have him back!!!! Tremendous impact on your business model

[@vide7334]

A dive into the Chinese Thorium project appreciated.

[@StephenYuan]

What is there to say? They have a small pilot reactor project going in the desert. It's producing power. Mainly I think they're trying to work out corrosion issues. Thorium is highly corrosive. If everything goes smoothly they will move forward with wider implementation of the tech in ten years or so.

[@xinfuxia3809]

It takes years to verify the reliability since reactors are supposed to run for decades.

[@jeffbenton6183]

I was honestly expecting them to bring that up when they brought up China's lack of domestic natural uranium.

[@paullafreniere3393]

A Renaissance man with impeccable energy knowledge based on experience not interests. Give us more

[@gunsumwong3948]

This is a gem for anyone wishing to know about Chinese nuclear industry. Morin's figures on power generation in China are spot on with what I have recorded. He is also able to rely why the Chinese nuclear industry has been arranged the way it is now. Keefer, the Canadian guy shows little specific technical knowledge other than where are the weak points of China so that sanction can be applied like the transportation routes, dependency on import and lack of uranium.

[@shiulai5804]

He is routing for Candu, as a Canadian.

[@EdPheil]

China is building a pilot Seawater Extraction of U, which will make U completely domestically sourced in the long run.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

1:00:00 Nuclear steam from district heating networks can also be used to drive absorption chillers for air conditioning and refrigeration during the summer to increase the utilization, sales, and profitablity.

[@francoismorin1739]

District heating system from standard PWR is not the same as heat from pool reactors the temperature of which is limited at 90°C, not enabling all functions you mention.

[@kielcemen]

At last something about Chinese nuclear. They do well; we should at least watch, what they do.

[@daniellarson3068]

A very good point was made in this video. For nuclear success, long term loans at low interest rates are needed. Back at the end of the seventies, there was a large group of nuclear plants cancelled in the United States. At that time interest rates had taken a jump.

[@robertr.hasspacher7731]

Why would fuel availability ever be an issue? Breeder reactors and thorium cycle are infinity fuel

[@GRGDM001]

I never can disagree on this! Absolute infinity energy for 1000 years

[@riderpaul]

It takes time to switch to renewables. At least China is heading in the right direction. Not sure we can say that about the United States. The utter lack of investment here in the US is pathetic. And then we've become cry babies, complaining the China is actually doing something other than vulture capitalism which is the US specialty.

[@microburn]

Thanks for the upload!

[@davidpetzer5725]

Great podcast !! Pleas get Kirk Sorenson on around Flibe energy . Thorium breeder / super crtical CO2 .

[@josephdewuhan]

Talking about total chinese co2 emission is irrelevant. One should compare the per capita number. Also, as the world factory, they necessarily need to use more power to produce all sorts of goods for the whole world.

[@francoismorin1739]

Yes, not only because of factories. New demand like Data centers, IA, EV grows faster than Nuclear production

[@rafamaszkowski6796]

Very interesting, as usual. The 2nd part should be about the long term plans, if they are any (how they could exist be in Beijing?). The next parts should say something about the Republic of China plans and about the closed cycle plans both in RoC and Beijing.

[@francoismorin1739]

Good point. China plans to have closed cycle. It is why it started construction of two Fast Breeders (right in front of Taiwan) together with 2 reprocessing plants in remote Gansu province + Mox factory. The implementation of such plan is complex as it requires a precise management of used fuel+fast neutron reactor deployment.

[@tedchandran]

Jai Hind. We Indians keep hearing that China is collapsing in our Western led media almost everyday. So there should be zero or negative growth in energy consumption. Why are the energy consumption especially coal still increasing?

[@luting3]

Because they are just generating to help keep earth warm.

[@info88w11]

manufacturing weapons

[@TheDanEdwards]

"We Indians keep hearing that China is collapsing in our Western led media almost everyday. " - don't believe everything you hear.

[@lance8080]

Go back to snake charming 👳🏾‍♂️

[@wuyuan6329]

电力

[@wgavacado]

"I'm just kidding.. maybe" 50:05 xD!!

[@KbB-kz9qp]

Wind and solare are intermittent sources, and offer no inertia for grid stabilization. The inertia inherent in synchronous generating sources helps the grid roll through rapid changes in the load. Wind is non synchronous, and solar has no moving parts. As such, both are intermittent, non-synchronous sources of energy.

[@Enkaptaton]

15:30 In China taxi drivers change the empty car batteries for charged ones. That is exactly the solution I came up with as a teenager (of course noone wanted to hear my advise). And I am sure many others did so too, it is quite easy and I ask myself why it is not done in the west!

[@larrybutler8794]

Again please tell us about the US Navies neuclear program. Many small reactors at sea.

[@NomenNescio99]

Naval reactors use highly enriched uranium which never would be allowed for civilian use. The cost of the naval reactors are also 10 - 100x times more expensive than what would acceptable for a civilian reactor

[@40hup]

@14:50 "doubling the electricity output until 2050 will be challanging" - yes, but completely doable if you look at the declining cost and growing installed capacity of renewables. China is a big country, with sunny, empty spaces. We have heard the tune beore - "renewables can not even fill 5% of electricity demand", and so on, long proven wrong, and big time. I think china will be the country to show the rest of the world how a change towards renewables is done. First point: You have to want to do it, and be able to ignore status quo of established energy producers and companies that want to pedle their old (fossil and nuclear) solutions in all eternity.

[@ryccoh]

This is interesting, if accounting for China's scale in comparison to use they're not getting close to the speed of deployment that several western countries achieved back in the day. I don't quite understand why. My hunch is that there's already a centralized nuclear regulatory entity that's a bottleneck. I don't quite know American nuclear history well but I'm guessing that back then they were established guidelines and practices but it was left up more to the companies to make good on them instead of having a single entity verifying everything

[@Waldemarvonanhalt]

At the moment the politburo probably feels it's easier and quicker to build out coal plants and start relying more on nuclear once coal is no longer that cost-effective.

[@ryccoh]

@@Waldemarvonanhalt they're asking for ten reactors a year, double what they're getting through their nuclear regulator

[@nielsharksen78]

From the comments of a very well informed associate, the regulator is indeed the limit at the moment. A secondary limit are sites, since China has stopped approving inland sites after Fukushima. Hopefully, both bottlenecks will disappear soon so coal is replaced. Even the much smaller US economy and population of the 70s was starting construction on more reactors than China during the best years.

[@ryccoh]

@@nielsharksen78 How in the world could sites be limited in real sense? It seems they caught the nuclear fear bug

[@shiulai5804]

​@@nielsharksen78 Regulations nowadays are more stringent than in the 70s, as they should.

[@bearowen5480]

The implied or underlying premise for the growing interest in nuclear powered electrical energy production is that it is generally desirable to primarily reduce the use of hydrocarbons, diminish carbon emissions, and thus decrease anthropogenic global warming regardless of cost to the consumer. The premise is flawed. Despite all the international climate change hysteria, the existence of anthropogenic causes of general atmospheric and oceanic warming is still an open scientific question. The risks to human life and prosperity of Draconian shifts away from the use of hydrocarbons for electrical power generation and transportation are far greater than modest future global temperature fluctuations within geophysically historic ranges. The best policies are those that allow market economics, specifically the pricing efficiencies of all the energy source options, to determine which should be used without government intervention through subsidies or fiats. Atmospheric pollution and negative environmental impacts such as for example acid rain, unhealthy chemically active particulates, or dangerous levels of mercury vapor pollution should obviously influence policy from a public health perspective. Nevertheless, if economically available scrubbing or other mitigation systems can cost effectively eliminate these adverse effects, coal and natural gas powered generation plants should be allowed to compete on a level economic playing field with wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear energy sources.

[@francoismorin1739]

Yes, it is what happens in China. Coal and other fossil fuels plants are allowed. The number of new coal plants exceeds the one of new reactors by 6 to 7 times (in capacity)

[@manuelkusce9447]

Solar produced more energy than nuclear in China in 2023: Solar 584 TWh Nuclear 434 TWh Wind 885 TWh Data from Ember energy

[@daveg5857]

Why do people insist on using nuclear as a noun?

[@francoismorin1739]

You are right, it is a too easy solution, well spread. It should remain an adjective, but we can't fight on all fronts simultaneously!

[@GizzyDillespee]

Nuclear is an adjective. Nuke can be a noun or a verb. Pseudo-intellectuals use nuclear as a noun, in the same way as they say thermo and hydro and solar, as nouns.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Electricity is a grid problem. Get the right experts, Medical doctors have their limits.

[@acwojtkowiak]

This is one of the best podcasts around, the guests are frequently multidisciplinary experts with good communication skills. Consider it a blessing that the host is somewhat a renaissance man himself and brings out the best from his guests.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@acwojtkowiak what did he say about the grid costs with grid electricity?? Do you remember ?

[@VarieTea729]

​@@stephenbrickwood1602We're not here to do your homework, Stephen. How about you watch the episodes instead of spamming your unrelated talking points for once?

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@VarieTea729 Yes, I have watched it. They said nothing about the grid costs. They spoke about the continuing high costs of plant construction. And the long time frames. Grid costs discussion, nothing. I am not spamming, I am talking facts. Investigate yourself. It is a real problem.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@VarieTea729 grid matters 15% to 100% is x7 times more electricity and GRID capacity. Grids cost $1million per km Little Australia has 1 million km = $7TRILLION. National GDP $1TRILLION. Plus generation plant costs. 100 years to build the existing grid. X7 ?? Raw materials are an impossible problem, ...... China has a bigger problem.

[@chapter4travels]

What will they do with all of this electricity generation when their economy collapses within the coming decade?

[@cheeseandjamsandwich]

We'll be able to turn off the dirtiest of the dirty generation... So coal, gas, oil generation will be shuttered first. Once you've got it, it's 'cheap'' to run. And it's a 100+ year asset too... So when we are skint, at least we have some energy. I totally agree that the planet is gonna be facing a LOT of shit in the next decades, which will collapse a lot of things, in varying ways, by varying amounts... But as energy is the foundation of almost everything we do, the generation of it will be protected the most. If we've built it. It's safe, and great! We just need to realise that we actually have to build a LOT of it VERY quickly, so that we minimise the shit that's coming our way, that we caused.

[@chrisruss9861]

You never have too much electricity for long.

[@paradox_1729]

It seems the Chinese have no interest in becoming hippies without technology growth like many in west is pining for.

[@bobdeverell]

Economy collapse ? Sounds like an American dream rather than reality !

[@vilas69]

/sarcasm Right? It must be...

[@magnuszerum9177]

The Tofu Dreg construction, corruption, and potential damage from failed dams are the primary issues with Chinese nuclear, but then again, that isn't a nuclear specific issue.

[@coolspace2786]

modified kumar crying about

[@lengould9262]

Insanity. More bridges and buildings collapse in the US than in China.

[@francoismorin1739]

please read my comment below to planetFrosty

[@jackyee7511]

Farkwit doesn't even have a passport

[@lengould9262]

I see more engineering failures in USA than in China.

[@PlanetFrosty]

China’s development at what cost considering the French reactors are questionable in construction anomalies and still indications of radiation leakage near Shenzhen according an engineer friend who fears catastrophic disaster is imminent. French government has pulled all out of projects due to anomies. Tofu nuclear is bad idea and this guy sounds like a tanker rather than honest agent/engineer representing safe nuclear power. China is largely a Ponzi scheme that’s collapsing with real debt approaching 400% of GDP. Starvation spreading throughout portions of China similar to early stages of Cultural Revolution.

[@josephdewuhan]

You are sleep talking. Hopefully not sleep walking at the same time.

[@bellakrinkle9381]

Worldwide 🌐 we haven't seen anything yet.

[@francoismorin1739]

You may confuse some past private constructions with state companies following governmental standard. CNN did the same mistake interviewing me some years ago. They were comparing the small primary schools in Sichuan, that were built outside of all rules and fell down during 2008 earthquake, to nuclear power plants. This is ridiculous. Even back in 1987-1988, for the construction of the first Dayabay reactor, Chinese knew well that their own cement/concrete was not suitable, so the entire concrete/steel was imported from abroad, reducing the Chinese part to 2% of the whole plant. Many airports and railway stations have been designed by foreign architects & engineers in China. As the famous Pudong airport in Shanghai. Foreigners are quite confident in their own structural calculations. However, the Chinese have always multiplied per 2 the safety margins, regardless of the cost. Propaganda, anti-propaganda, all this is nice and even fun sometimes. But it works better when it is based on facts and knowledge!

[@thomasw.1854]

Internet shrill spreading misinformation and anti-China narrative, fear and envy ....... Western and Indian shrills are everywhere 😅😂

[@jackyee7511]

Another farkwit without a passport