America Is About To Fall Behind China On 1 Of The Most Important Issues Of Our Time
www.huffpost.com
China is on a clear course to become the world’s first “electrostate" — and is likely to eclipse the U.S. in atomic power in the next decade.

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Meanwhile, the U.S. seeks to revive its nuclear industry, but trade restrictions and outdated infrastructure hinder progress.

  • einkorn@feddit.orgEnglish
    77·
    2 days ago

    Fossil fuels are killing this planet before your very eyes.

    And the only way to save it is nuclear power? Every thread about this topic makes it look this way.

    Thing is: Fossil fuels are killing our planet NOW. Spending 10+ years to build a new state-of-the-art nuclear power plant is simply too slow. Just take the money and dump it into technology that’s already available at short notice: Solar, wind, geothermal and tons and tons of battery storage. I’m not sure about the situation in other countries, but here in Germany there isn’t even a permanent storage site for the nuclear waste we ALREADY produced let alone one for which we’d produce in the future.

    Additional factor for not going nuclear in Europe: Do you know which country exports the most fissile material around us? It starts with an R and ends with ussia.

    • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
      31·
      2 days ago

      And the only way to save it is nuclear power?

      Not sure where you got this from what’s written there

      • einkorn@feddit.orgEnglish
        56·
        2 days ago

        Not sure, maybe from the posts where everybody argues that Nuclear is so much better than coal but totally missing the point that yes, it’s better than coal, but so much worse than renewables.

        • Huge upfront costs
        • Long build time (We need to get CO2 down now!)
        • Waste disposal time measured in aeons.
        • Risk of contamination (again for aeons)
          • Yes, coal kills more people, but
            1. Scale our usage of nuclear power by 100 and watch the casualties scale as well.
            2. That’s not the frigging point. We want to get rid of coal ANYWAY. The question is which one is better: Fossil nuclear or renewables.
        • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          62·
          2 days ago

          The question is which one is better: Fossil nuclear or renewables.

          Both, whatever we can build faster, whatever makes it easier to reduce coal and oil. It shouldn’t be an either-or decision. Also, nuclear is not a fossil fuel, you can debate if it is renewable or not, but nuclear fuel is not made from compressed organic matter.

          • einkorn@feddit.orgEnglish
            26·
            2 days ago

            Both, whatever we can build faster, whatever makes it easier to reduce coal and oil. It shouldn’t be an either-or decision.

            You are kind of contradicting yourself. Because in both aspects nuclear energy looses to renewables: They are faster and less complex to build. Easier to maintain and dispose of if necessary.

            Also, nuclear is not a fossil fuel, you can debate if it is renewable or not, but nuclear fuel is not made from compressed organic matter.

            Ok, if you want to split hairs, yes nuclear energy is not fossil but also then there are also no renewables because the energy in the universe is for all we know finite.