China built one of the world's largest nuclear reactors (4040MWt) in just 5 years
>>16472492>MWtWhat?
>>16472492Implications?
>>16472503Thermal power
>>16472492For comparison, Flamanville 3 took 17 years
>>16472492implessive
>>16472492>ai (formerly cgi) imageI've seen enough chinese rekt threads on /gif/ to know mongolian industrialization was a mistake, but allowing them to have nuclear power is just asking for the worst possible disasters.
>>16472540>chinese rekt threads6 points>mongolian 1 point>allowing them3 points=10/10would troll again
>>16472540There are not many pictures online however they can be seen from spacehttps://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-reactor-database/details/Shidaowan-Guohe-One-1
>>16472540China's first nuclear power reactor was a indigenous submarine reactor, and the first grid power reactor CNP-300 was also indigenous
>>16472492so whats the hook? big tech was trying to get nuclear off the ground for their data centers but seem to have been denied, will their reactors help make AI training cheaper?
>>16472540PWRs don't fail and even if they did it wouldn't be nearly as bad as even western mercury chloralkali plants' normal emissions.
>>16472492>in just 5 yearsOK. About Hinkley Point C:>The UN, under the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, ordered the Department for Communities and Local Government to send a delegation to face the committee in December 2014, on the "profound suspicion" that the UK failed to properly consult neighbouring countries.[47]Sure.>In February 2017, the UN, under the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, 'said the UK should consider refraining from further works' until it has heard back from other countries on whether it would be helpful for them to be formally notified under a treaty on transboundary environmental impacts.[67]And did they subject China to the same rules? Yes? And they also stopped all work for yewars until the issues were fully resolved?
Yea yea this is another Chinese mega engineering project that's bound to gave ecological consequences just like all the others. That's the problem with having so many people. They are hard to maintain so you result to desperate measures.
>>16472540The dirty secret hidden by anti-nuclear lobbyists is that, even with Liveleak-tier Chinese safety standards, nuclear power is safe and reliable. All problems are caused exclusively by willful retardation. As in, you have to *want* to be retarded, in order to cause damage. But this goes against the established (in the West) narrative, so it's forcefully swept under the rug. >>16473752As I understand, they weren't outright denied, but the locations they had initially picked are no bueno, which unfortunately caused a ton of stalling, because they were retarded enough to not have a couple fallback options. Which, knowing how techbros operate, isn't entirely surprising.
>>16475159One or two reactors isn't a particularly big project by Chinese standards. The mega project is that they plan to build 200-300 large reactors over the coming decades.
>>16473752That was mostly a bunch of hype. They made nonbinding commitments for a handful of tiny 75-80MW reactors. And those reactors won't be finished for at least another decade; they don't even have an NRC licence for a power reactor yet.
>nuclear reactors made of chinesumChernobyl 2.0 waiting to happen
Is it built on the same concrete they make their buildings out of?
>>16478465>this one country bigger than the entire western world combined is defined by some clips from 10 years ago !