World’s first fourth-generation nuclear reactor goes online in China

Jack, I applaud you for calling out the extreme progressives and their demonization of nuclear energy. It gives me hope that you might be the moderate that you claim to be and weren’t captured by usual far-left crowd on RallyPoint.

Your wording is a bit confusing though because you seem to be falling into the old far-left habit of stringing words together that have no basis in reality. Are you trying to imply that those on the right object to nuclear energy? That somehow China is a paragon of ‘green energy’ because they brough a 700 MW nuclear powerplant online after 11 years of construction?

If your implication was the first, then you are probably unaware (or just conveniently ignore) that Republicans are the most supportive of using nuclear energy and the progressives that worry a ‘great deal’ about climate change are the biggest opposer of it. A recent Gallup poll showed that 60% of Republicans are in favor of it (37% oppose) though only 39% of Democrats support it (59% oppose), and the ‘concerned a great deal’ climate change crowd (79% of who are from the Democrat’s far-left side) only support it marginally (29% support and 67% oppose).

If your implication is the second, the 700 MW that China gets from this nuclear power plant is a drop in the bucket when compared to the 243 GIGAWATTS of coal-fired power plants that they are currently building or have approved plans to build, not to mention another 149 GW of coal-fired capacity that has been announced but not formally permitted. According to the World Nuclear Association, they have a total of 53.2 GW of nuclear power currently operable with plans for an additional 27.7 GW under construction or currently approved.

Oh wait, China said "trust us, we're going to reduce our CO2 emissions in 7 years". I know that's enough for the far-left, after all, they easily believe whatever someone tells them, but for the rational group, if they actually follow through, then this is nothing more than a store tripling the price on an item before it goes "on sale" for 20% off. Again, that's IF they follow through because as the rational group knows, they don't have a track record of following though with the other promises they made in the past.

You’ll be hard pressed to find many on the right that object to nuclear power as something that can be done now (there are challenges, but they can be addressed with current technology and capabilities). Personally, I support the repurposing of all the shut-down coal plants and converting them to nuclear power plants. The distribution infrastructure is already there for the power distribution and according to the DOE much of the workforce and existing site infrastructure can be re-utilized.

Does it really matter that the one group of supporters want it because it makes realistic sense instead of blindly following an ideology that someone told them to follow? If those far-left progressives opposed to nuclear power would get out of the way of actual progress being accomplished, you might actually find something that both sides could agree on. That’s not going to happen though because the far-left wants a fictional narrative that supports their ideology instead of a realistic solution that could address the issue.

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/04/ [login to see] /companies-say-theyre-closing-in-on-nuclear-fusion-as-an-energy-source-will-it-wo

I don't like nuclear reactors because they are dangerous and costly And the waste is always a problem. Chernobyl and Fukushima are good examples why - as are reactors that are, have been, might be targets during armed conflict like in Ukraine, and a missile is said to have landed near a facility in Israel recently.
However, when Fukushima happened, I read that most of the reactors in U.S. were as old as Fukushima and built by the same company. I don't know which generation they are, but it was past time, then, to consider retiring them or replacing them. It seems that 4th generation plants would be preferable to the old worn out 1st or 2nd gen maybe original nuclear plants. And with nothing else seems to be on the horizon to replace them in making as much power . . . replacement seems advisable . . . unless all renewable resources together can do an adequate job. They probably can for residential areas. But maybe not for industry. I simply do not know.
Building nuclear plants is a huge drain on utility customers. and the cost continues to increase. There is one in AZ that does not produce power for us here in NM, that we pay for with our monthly utility bill here in NM which is exorbitant. I hail from the PNW where hydropower reigns and is not nearly as costly. However, There was a similar high cost nuclear reactor built in Washington state which increased the utility bill of residential customers. When I see that people want to dismantle dam I can understand why however where is juice for the grid going to be produced for the population without a periodic depopulation events. I'm sorry to have to say China was right about limiting how many children a couple can have. It is preferable to depopulation by pandemic, war, famine . . . imho.
Hanford is also in PNW, probably 1st gen, and a superfund cleanup site since 89 with no end in sight. The waste is always the problem. Clean up at Hanford had barely started after nearly 30 years when in 2017 there was another catastrophe there. The region may never be open to the public again.
WIPP in NM, for nuclear waste disposal/storage is not built in a geologically stable area, like it would have been in Nevada. More strings were pulled in congress by Nevada so WIPP ended up in NM with the promise of no high level nuclear waste being dumped there. That promise was only hot air, and didn't last long. Nor did it take long for a leak to develop (after about 15 years). The waste at storage sites is always a problem and transportation of it to storage sites is also. I read the government produced geological analysis of the WIPP site, and the independent research geological analysis of the site. They were quite different from one another. Simply knowing the basic geology of the area it was clear the region was not a good location. The independent report confirmed that. The government report ignored it.
Clearly nuclear facilities are fraught with difficulties and high cost at every stage, as is waste storage and transportation. But can all the other renewable energy sources, together, produce all that is needed? Newer possibilities like Fusion, zero point energy . . . are apparently not at a stage of being commercially viable.

China's 4th generation reactors are described in an interesting way: "Fourth-generation reactors aim to limit the environmental impact, nuclear waste burden, risk of nuclear meltdown, and opportunities for nuclear proliferation, according to the Gen IV International Forum (GIF), an international cooperative framework of major nuclear nations."