Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 22:48:41 UTC No. 16472503

>>16472492
>MWt
What?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 22:48:44 UTC No. 16472504

>>16472492
Implications?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 22:59:31 UTC No. 16472519

>>16472503
Thermal power

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 23:00:38 UTC No. 16472521

>>16472492
For comparison, Flamanville 3 took 17 years

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 23:06:55 UTC No. 16472526

>>16472492
implessive

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 23:23:37 UTC No. 16472540

>>16472492
>ai (formerly cgi) image
I'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.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 23:39:06 UTC No. 16472555

>>16472540
>chinese rekt threads
6 points
>mongolian
1 point
>allowing them
3 points
=
10/10
would troll again

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 00:01:28 UTC No. 16472585

>>16472540
There are not many pictures online however they can be seen from space
https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-reactor-database/details/Shidaowan-Guohe-One-1

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 00:02:48 UTC No. 16472587

>>16472540
China's first nuclear power reactor was a indigenous submarine reactor, and the first grid power reactor CNP-300 was also indigenous

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:41:04 UTC No. 16473752

>>16472492
so 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?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 22:19:28 UTC No. 16473931

>>16472540
PWRs don't fail and even if they did it wouldn't be nearly as bad as even western mercury chloralkali plants' normal emissions.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:32:38 UTC No. 16475109

>>16472492
>in just 5 years
OK. 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?

Stop guessing start learning at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:01:06 UTC No. 16475159

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.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 08:08:22 UTC No. 16475816

>>16472540
The 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.

>>16473752
As 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.