China's Nuclear Breakthrough

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

In early April, Chinese scientists achieved a milestone in clean energy technology by successfully adding fresh fuel to an operational thorium molten salt reactor, the first of its kind in the world. The breakthrough signals the arrival of commercially viable thorium nuclear reactor in China’s future energy mix.

Thorium is much safer and more abundant alternative to uranium for nuclear power as it is widely available, cheaper to extract, has higher energy density, and produces far less long-lasting nuclear waste.

It is far safer than uranium as it is not fissile on its own so cannot be weaponized.

Thorium is found in abundant quantity in earth’s crust all over the world.

12 Likes
2

While our loser Government looks backwards and tries to send the country back in time, the rest of the world is shooting past us. The luddites are going to send us down the path of obscurity.

14 Likes
3

The article says the Chinese reactor operates at 2 megawatts (MW) of power. This is just a small research and test reactor, not a commercial power generator. But it is important to build and operate a test reactor first, to demonstrate the technology and to find out if there are any unforeseen bugs in the design.

Here in the US, a similar test reactor is being built at Abilene Christian University in Texas. I don’t know if this reactor will use thorium for fuel, but it is a molten fuel design.

_ Pete

14 Likes
4

Dear TJS,

As the we Americans take our turn at demand side economics we will be like ducks in water building these reactors. This is very welcome news.

1 Like
5

And once again China captures the lead in a critical new technology. Are our folks asleep at the switch? Or merely slow? Should we cite under investment in infrastructure one more time?

Why does this happen again and again?

1 Like
6

Because the USian “powers that be” only care about another tax cut, so defund education and research, thinking they can always buy everything they want, after it was developed, at someone else’s expense, by people educated at someone else’s expense?

The local news was blathering, a couple days ago, about some high school’s baseketball team, and pushing a crowd funding effort for new weight room equipment for the “athletes”. I see that over and over on the “news”: donate for football equipment, donate for basketball equipment, donate for instruments for the marching band. I never see the “news” talking about funding chemistry or physics lab equipment.

Steve

7 Likes
7

More likely a shortage of venture capital for true innovation products. Funds usually restricted to tiny incremental improvements.

Lack of vision of the future? Copy what others do? Lack of strategic planning.

1 Like
8

I think it is because people can’t come together to support a vision. They just want to fight over the implementation. We should have high speed trains across the United States, we should have better nuclear technology, we should be far ahead.

But look at it now. We are attacking colleges, going after Student Visas, causing inflation to go up with stupid attacks on things that do not matter. Until we can come together, to work towards a common goal, Like when Kennedy stated the goal of going to the moon. We are doomed to slide into obscurity.

8 Likes
9

Agree. Let’s focus more on woke transgender bathrooms and DEI initiatives.

1 Like
10

It is possible to do 2 things (or even more) at the same time!

JimA

2 Likes
11

Exactly because it just gives you more video’s to watch. I have never seen anyone, like you, that gets excited over the word transgender.

4 Likes
12

You guys spoke about woke DEI and Transgender for years non stop and gave away my tax dollars to initiatives all of the world. DOGE is now cancelling this nonsense.

13

The CEO is most concerned with his next bonus check?

There was a piece on Wall Street Week last night, about how M&M Mars and an electric utility in Italy stay focused. For a company that really “lost it’s way”, they used Boeing.

The amount of cynicism among “JCs” today, is stunning. Here’s an example: Ford Motor.

I came across a video last night, of another mechanic talking about the horrid water pump design on a particular Ford V6. I would expect Ford found the way it installed the pump to be beneficial to it, in terms of packaging and/or cost, but it is a major expense for the owner. But, by the time the pump fails, the car is out of warranty, and probably on it’s second owner, so Ford doesn’t care about the owner experience, when the car is 6-7 years old, with 100,000 miles on it. My neighbor got bit by that one of these. That is just one case. There are other engines that Ford has installed a rubber timing and/or oil pump belt, running in engine oil.

For the detail obsessed, the video of the mechanic talking about the V6 water pump.

Another mechanic tearing down one of those V6s, when the owner didn’t notice, right away, the pump was leaking, and fork over thousands to have the pump replaced.

One of Ford’s “wet timing belt” engines, getting a new belt at only 66,000 miles. The thing about a belt running in engine oil, is the bits of rubber and fiber that the belt sheds as it runs, fall into the oil pan, and get sucked into the oil pickup. If enough debris is sucked into the oil pickup, oil flow is blocked, and the engine is damaged. I’m sure Ford finds a wet belt advantageous, to Ford. The expense and inconvenience for the owner, down the road? Ford doesn’t care.

Same shop, working on another Transit. Owner complained about the brakes. The problem was debris from the wet timing belt worked it’s way through the oil system, into the vacuum pump that provides the boost for the power brakes. 67,000 miles. At the 2:35 mark, the mechanic shows the belt debris in the oil pump pickup. This is all completely predictable with a “wet belt”. Ford doesn’t care

Steve

2 Likes
14

And we remember first tries that failed like Hertz investment in EVs.

But you must admire people like Jeff Bezos or Steve Jobs who had a vision and made it happen. We clearly need more of those. We must encourage them and support their efforts. There is no other way. Otherwise we become a second rate leader (what ever that is–how about a loser.)

1 Like
15

and we are repeating loudly ’ we invented that and we once again allow the other to run and profit from it’. That is the soliloquy of the American.

Sure we are all Americans. We invented everything with all those immigrants who came. The enemies are the ones who learned and left, so we say.

1 Like
16

In the US, cheap natural gas and huge government subsidies for wind and solar make it difficult to develop anything else. Natural gas power plants produce over 40% of the electricity in the US and we are building more. As long as gas remains around $3 per MMBTU, I don’t see things changing much. Yes, natural gas is a fossil fuel, but it is cleaner burning than coal, so it is sold as more environmentally friendly. Anything with the word “nuclear” in it leads to a regulatory nightmare that most power companies just don’t want to deal with.

Current fuel mix for US electricity:

Screenshot 2025-04-26 at 12-08-12 Energy Statistics Data Browser – Data Tools - IEA
Screenshot 2025-04-26 at 12-08-12 Energy Statistics Data Browser – Data Tools - IEA1163×858 67.6 KB

Chart and more information here:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

By the way, the title of this thread, “China’s Nuclear Breakthrough” is a little misleading. A “breakthrough” implies something new and different. A breakthrough indicates something that hasn’t been done before. In reality, the molten fuel fission reactor was first developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee back in the 1960s.

The molten salt reactor experiment (MSRE) used U-233 as fuel, which is the same fissile material that the Chinese reactor uses. Thorium must be transmuted into U-233 before it can undergo fission.

There were several reasons why the technology never caught on. My own opinion: The on-line reprocessing of fuel that is needed for a molten core reactor makes things a lot more complicated than a simple once-through uranium fuel cycle with solid ceramic fuel.

But there are definitely some positive points about a thorium fuel cycle, too. I don’t buy into the weapons proliferation reasons, but thorium is more plentiful than uranium, and especially more plentiful than the fissile U-235 isotope.

_ Pete

1 Like
17

Yep, they also canceled (pretty much) DOE’s Loan Programs Office, which was pretty much keeping nuclear energy alive in the United States (and at a small profit to the taxpayer too, it should be said).

18

Are you sure about that? It looks to me that the new administration is rather supportive of nuclear energy.

18 March 2025

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Tennessee Valley Authority’s SMR project at Clinch River still appears to be on-track.

_ Pete

1 Like
19

There’s a blast from the past. The pump seal company I worked for had a toe in the proposed fast br!@der at Clinch River.

The project was first authorized in 1970. After initial appropriations were provided in 1972, work continued until the U.S. Congress terminated funding on October 26, 1983. The project was seen to be “unnecessary and wasteful”.

(Wiki link omitted due to bad word, according to the Fool)

Steve

20

Pretty sure. If the LPO didn’t exist, Holtec wouldn’t have gotten the first part of the loan in the first place, which means the project never would have been been started.

In the case of the TVA SMR, that program was also created by the previous administration.

I’m not sure how you originate and vet new loans with no staff, but maybe DOGE has a magic wand they can use.

3 Likes