No. I actually stated that the report was thinly veiled lobbying and thus shouldn’t be given much credence, but since you seem to put an extraordinary amount of emphasis on one line of the report and cite it again and again and again, we might as well take the report as a whole (which is much more qualified than the headlines claimed)
It's not one line of the report at all; it's the entire summary highlight section. It's the basic information that the US has 0 4th gen reactors and is building 0 while China has the only 1 in the world and is building 27. This is an easy analysis for me to see that China is far far ahead. Saying it's lobbying is just hiding from that truth.
Yes - since capital stock lasts for a long time - capital formation involves both stock and flow measurements; and so even decades later, the Us
So the US has a lot of old shit. You don't look smarter by putting it that way LOL
Citing once again - “Where China has thrived, however, regarding nuclear power innovation more pertains to systemic and organizational innovation. This especially refers to the country’s coherent national strategy toward nuclear power—at both federal and provincial levels—which entails a range of supportive policies from low-interest financing, feed-in tariffs, and other subsidies that make nuclear power generation cost competitive to streamlined permitting and regulatory approval (i.e., of safety and environmental impact assessments), to coordinating supply chains in an effective fashion. Indeed, as industry analyst Kenneth Luongo commented, “They don’t have any secret sauce other than state financing, state supported supply chain, and a state commitment to build the technology.”
You don't have any technology until you make it. A 5 minute YouTube demo can turn into a 12 hour headache at Home Depot before calling the professionals. It makes no sense for anyone to say they can make something until they've done it. So just as I said, equally big dream, but China is the doer.
The report you cite does not support your highly bombastic conclusions.
Because you're illiterate. Everything supports China being way ahead:
"China intends to build 150 new nuclear reactors between 2020 and 2035, with 27 currently under construction and the average construction timeline for each reactor about seven years, far faster than for most other nations.
China has commenced operation of the world’s first fourth-generation nuclear reactor, for which China asserts it developed some 90 percent of the technology.
China is leading in the development and launch of cost-competitive small modular reactors (SMRs).
Overall, analysts assess that China likely stands 10 to 15 years ahead of the United States in its ability to deploy fourth-generation nuclear reactors at scale.
China’s innovation strengths in nuclear power pertain especially to organizational, systemic, and incremental innovation. Many fourth-generation nuclear technologies have been known for years, but China’s state-backed approach excels at fielding them.
Analysts assess America and China are likely at par when it comes to efforts to develop nuclear fusion technologies, but they warn that China’s demonstrated ability to deploy fission reactors at scale gives it an advantage for when fusion comes online.
Looking narrowly at scientific publications on nuclear energy, China ranks first in the H-index, a commonly used metric measuring the scholarly impact of journal publications.
From 2008 to 2023, China’s share of all nuclear patents increased from 1.3 percent to 13.4 percent, and the country leads in the number of nuclear fusion patent applications."
Congress is a legislature, not an energy corporate or a regulator so Congress passing laws is all they can do; that is where their power comes from. This is clearly not “just talk” since there’s an actual new law that’s now in force.
It's fine that they talk to each other. But I would keep it shut until they get results. You're here gloating like talking is as good as results LOL
If getting “beat” involves Cisco grossing $50bn a year, again, that proves the point lol. US firm competitive advantages are deep and entrenched and will persist no matter what happens in other countries
Yeah, it could involve grossing $50B; getting beaten means losing tech dominance, then losing market dominance, then being relegated. Once again, when you said that the American advantage would persist for decades, I was thinking 2050's at least. If you just meant 2030's, that's probably fine.
You don’t need to know anything about China as the comment below proves.
You don't need to know anything about what you're talking about? LOL How American.
2-3 decades is a working lifetime and if that’s the lower bound on your estimate - that proves the point about US competitive advantages persisting, regardless of what happens in the rest of the world.
First of all, how I estimate and define something will never prove anything about a supposed advantage into the future. Your big mouth is once again taking talking as action. Secondly, 203X as you said, is like 10 years away. That's about as far as I'm willing to give America the benefit of the doubt for its old rusting global crony tools holding on before Chinese technology ushers in the new era.
The proportion of people that go to 4 year colleges is not the same in each country, the denominators simply are not the same and so cannot directly be compared; the U.S. has effectively open enrollment 4yr universities; China has a gaokao limit - enrollment compositions (especially at U.S. regional universities will reflect that accordingly) - the lines I added were the Engineering and Science ones in China; the CIS/Eng./Math/Phys/Life. The graph also proves my point - 820K stem graduates in the U.S.; 3.57 million graduates in China, so there are 4.35x more stem graduates in China which is entirely consistent with a population differential - 1.4/.330 is 4.24.
So this factors in all the rural areas of China waiting to be developed and getting developed every year. Now if you see a developing nation with rising college attendance rates and a 41% STEM selection vs a developed nation with dropping college attendance rates and a 20% STEM selection, with the developing nation 4x larger and already above par
per capita (all the poorest areas included) with the developed nation, what do you see about the STEM power of each country in the forseeable future?
The declines in college attendance have nearly entirely been concentrated in humanities enrollment - CS enrollments have increased substantially - see Table 6 -
Quote the line or graph that shows that the decline is concentrated in humanities. I searched "humanities" and the word did not come up.
People make trade offs between consumption today vs. consumption tomorrow. If people want to consume today and save less today; that’s a completely reasonable choice, but it is not evidence of financial distress. It’s evidence people are unhappy dealing with a budget constraint - something people have been unhappy about since the beginning of time.
It's a painful choice between leaving yourself financially vulnerable now or having nothing to retire on. That's the point of being financially stressed and living paycheck to paycheck. If you made enough to max out the 401K, cover your expenses and still have money in the bank, then you would be financially healthy.
If living “paycheck to paycheck” involves a savings component, it’s now a tautology since savings + consumption = income.
Not if the savings is inaccessible, leaving the person vulnerable to financial shock in the meantime.
You are risk-averse and like to save money.
No, that's if I were poor and had to pick this or that when financially healthy means you get all of it. I spend all I want (within reason, beyond that, such as buying Lamborghinis, I have no desire), max out my 401K and still have money in the bank. That's called financial stability and the opposite of paycheck to paycheck.
Others aren’t and like to spend money today. Different people have different circumstances and different considerations which result in different outcomes.
Others aren't finanically secure and have to choose between having nothing to retire on or having no money set aside for emergencies today and would get panic wrecked if they lost thier job. That's definitely a different circumstance.
Least surprising thing ever.
Your stupid responses are the least surprising thing ever.
