China today is foreign oil dependent like Germany in WW2

The USA produced 70% of the oil in the world in WW2. 20% of the oil was produced by the Soviet Union.

The British did not surrender and used its navy to blockade Germany’s oil imports. Germany imported 60% of its oil in 1939.

In 1941, Germany only had 18% of the oil it had in peacetime.

Germany had about two months of oil in June, 1941 which forced the attempt to capture Russian oil in the Caucasus.

Romania supplied Germany with roughly 13 million barrels of oil per year between 1941 and 1943. Germany’s peak oil production (in 1944) amounted to about 12 million barrels of oil per year. OIl from all sources, including synthetic (the majority) reached a peak of 71 million barrels per year. Germany peak oil requirements for normal operations amounted closer to 95 million barrels short by 20 – 25 million barrels.

The caucusus produced 220 million barrels of oil per year. Maikop produced 19 million barrels annually, Grozny 32 million barrels, and Baku 170 million barrels — Germany only needed to restore 10% of these field’s capacity to cover its needs.

Oil was decisive for air power

There were constant fuel shortages for Germany and shortages of aviation fuel. The US and Britain had higher octane fuel which enabled planes that were 15% faster.

There is a 31 page paper on oil in WW2.
Air Command and Staff college: Turning Point: A History of German Petroleum in WW2 and its lesson for the role of oil in modern air warfare. Shawn P. Keller, Major, USAF AY11 Spring Independent Elective Advisor: Dr. Michael May

The Luftwaffe itself carried out blending of aviation gasoline, and of particular interest to them was the high-grade oil that could only be produced through the hydrogenation method rather than F-T. By January 1941, Germany had stocks of aviation fuel totaling 219.5 million gallons, of which ninety-percent was a product of the synthetic fuel industry.

By the end of 1941 aviation fuel reserves were down to 91 million gallons. Although synthetic production increased substantially in 1943 into early 1944 and boosted aviation fuel reserves, quantities never come close to the January 1941 figures. German supply would not be able to keep up with Luftwaffe demand for the rest of the war.

By most standards, Germany’s synthetic fuel was a technological wonder, and equal in quality and performance to fuel refined from oil. This was particularly true of German diesel and motor gas. Development of high-performance aviation fuel proved to be the one exception. By the 1930s, standard aviation gasoline had an octane rating of 75-80.

A breakthrough in gasoline technology occurred in the United States in 1935 that made it technically possible to produce aviation gas of up to 100 octane. By 1939, both the U.S. Army Air Corps and the RAF were using this higher-octane gasoline, allowing them to develop more powerful engines such as the Rolls Royce Merlin. The net result was that U.S. and British aircraft were now able to fly 15 percent faster, increased their long-range bomber distance by 1,500 miles, and lifted altitude ceilings by 10,000 feet.

Late in the war when German engineers were working feverishly to develop aircraft engines that could compete with the newer and faster Allied fighters. Unfortunately for Germany, Allied assaults against the synthetic fuel plants had already made production of higher-octane fuel virtually impossible. Germany never obtained aviation fuel equal in quality to the Allied air forces, and Luftwaffe aircraft development suffered greatly for it.

India and China today are more dependent upon oil

China imports 70% of its oil and India imports 87% of its oil. They mostly get the oil from the middle east which could easily be blocked with a naval blockade. The US has the stronger Navy and could apply such a blockade against China.

China is importing 9 million barrels per day.

China produces a little less than 4 million barrels of oil per day.

India produces 750,000 barrels of oil per day.

India imports 5 million barrels of oil per day.

China imports most of its oil from the middle east. If there was a conflict where China face a naval blockade then China would be cut off from most oil just as Germany was in WW2.

India also mostly imports oil from the middle east.

Unlike WW2, China can use long-range missiles to hit Saudi Arabia and US oil refineries and infrastructure to force oil shortages for everyone. They could also hit GPS satellites to reduce the effectiveness of US precision warfare.

China economy is more vulnerable to disruption.

186 thoughts on “China today is foreign oil dependent like Germany in WW2”

  1. I have read the paper by Shawn P. Keller. It has confirmed suspicions I have always had about the conduct of the war. I should like to add that Germany would obviously have used every means at its disposal to keep its fuel shortage secret and that many of the records that did exist did not survive the war. Thus I suspect that a few of the inexplicable events of the war becomes clear if one assumes that German forces simply ran out of fuel – the halt outside Dunkirk – the refusal to allow fighters to carry drop tanks over Britain and the premature cessation of the air fleets’ assaults – the halt outside Moscow – the halt at Stalingrad – the halt at Alamein (well that ones pretty well known I guess) – the large amount of vehicles abandoned in Italy – the grounding of the Luftwaffe in 44 – the wait (for fuel?) before the panzers reacted in June 44 – the halt at Falaise – the catastrophe of Bagration – the inaction of the battle fleet and then of course the Bulge.

    Reply
  2. China imports 70% of its oil and India imports 87% of its oil. They mostly get the oil from the middle east which could easily be blocked with a naval blockade. The US has the stronger Navy and could apply such a blockade against China.” Or, India could block oil shipments to China from the PG. Japan could also, but not as easily as the Indians can do. The IO where the oil has to pass through is in both India’s back and front yard, so to speak. But makes China, India and most of the rest of Asia vulnerable is possible war breaking out between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Then things will get really, really bad. Great for the US of largest oil exporters A, tho.

    Reply
  3. I think as far as oil is concerned circa 1930s/40s, comparing China to then Japan is more appropriate. We cut off oil shipments the Japan…and that led directly to Pearl Harbor.

    Reply
  4. China imports 70{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of its oil and India imports 87{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of its oil. They mostly get the oil from the middle east which could easily be blocked with a naval blockade. The US has the stronger Navy and could apply such a blockade against China.””Or”” India could block oil shipments to China from the PG. Japan could also but not as easily as the Indians can do. The IO where the oil has to pass through is in both India’s back and front yard so to speak.But makes China India and most of the rest of Asia vulnerable is possible war breaking out between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Then things will get really really bad. Great for the US of largest oil exporters A”” tho.”””

    Reply
  5. I think as far as oil is concerned circa 1930s/40s comparing China to then Japan is more appropriate.We cut off oil shipments the Japan…and that led directly to Pearl Harbor.

    Reply
  6. Problem is that the west is not the US And Europe is starting to reconsider their ties with the US As an Italian, I d not see the open point to stick with an “ally” who only screwes you And I think that if the US pulls out from business with China their economy will be screwed much more as all iPhones are made in China now

    Reply
  7. The US has the stronger Navy and could apply such a blockade against China. -> China has also many nuckes and ICBMs . China can start a nuclear war with the US

    Reply
  8. The far greater dependency for China is trade. If the west stopped all trade and pulled their manufacturing from China, their economy would collapse. And the military wouldn’t be far behind. China has a vested interest in being as warm and cozy as possible with America. Instead, they are making the same mistake Japan made in the 1930’s: Sabre rattling, setting up a ring of islands with offensive capabilities, intimating their neighbors, and implementing aggressive trade policies… It won’t take much more for the west to do an about-face and divest from the Chinese economy. After all, why should we fund the economy of a nation that appears to be preparing for war against us?

    Reply
  9. Those can be bombed. Ever hear of long range cruise missiles? Esp from the Indians, who could use medium range bombers even. T That makes those pipelines even worse as far as concentrated targets. At least oil tankers can be more numerous and not in one place. And if the ME stops producing oil because the terminals (both shipping and pipeline) get bombed, all that pipeline across the Stans won’t amount to much but a lot of wasted steel. Russia is a different story. Most of its Far East oil production and terminals is actually controlled by western firms like ExxonMobil and Shell as those contracts were set up during the Yeltsin years and the US government put its foot down when Putin tried to seize those. And even if all that was redirected to China — it would barely scratch the surface of demand.

    Reply
  10. Germany…and even Japan…had superior weapons/tech. The Japanese Zero was better than anything the Americans fielded at the start of the war, at least. But they had severe fuel supply problems.

    Reply
  11. China and India needs to reduce their consumption of oil. They both need to reduce car and truck usage and to use cars and trucks with higher mpg. They can reduce car usage by focusing on mass transportation. They can reduce truck usage by increasing cargo rail. They can improve mpg by going high mpg engines, hybrid and EV. If they were aggressive they could half their oil usage in 20 years.

    Reply
  12. Problem is that the west is not the US And Europe is starting to reconsider their ties with the US As an Italian I d not see the open point to stick with an ally”” who only screwes you And I think that if the US pulls out from business with China their economy will be screwed much more as all iPhones are made in China now”””

    Reply
  13. The US has the stronger Navy and could apply such a blockade against China.-> China has also many nuckes and ICBMs . China can start a nuclear war with the US

    Reply
  14. The far greater dependency for China is trade. If the west stopped all trade and pulled their manufacturing from China their economy would collapse. And the military wouldn’t be far behind. China has a vested interest in being as warm and cozy as possible with America. Instead they are making the same mistake Japan made in the 1930’s: Sabre rattling setting up a ring of islands with offensive capabilities intimating their neighbors and implementing aggressive trade policies… It won’t take much more for the west to do an about-face and divest from the Chinese economy. After all why should we fund the economy of a nation that appears to be preparing for war against us?

    Reply
  15. Those can be bombed. Ever hear of long range cruise missiles? Esp from the Indians who could use medium range bombers even. TThat makes those pipelines even worse as far as concentrated targets. At least oil tankers can be more numerous and not in one place. And if the ME stops producing oil because the terminals (both shipping and pipeline) get bombed all that pipeline across the Stans won’t amount to much but a lot of wasted steel. Russia is a different story. Most of its Far East oil production and terminals is actually controlled by western firms like ExxonMobil and Shell as those contracts were set up during the Yeltsin years and the US government put its foot down when Putin tried to seize those. And even if all that was redirected to China — it would barely scratch the surface of demand.

    Reply
  16. Germany…and even Japan…had superior weapons/tech. The Japanese Zero was better than anything the Americans fielded at the start of the war at least.But they had severe fuel supply problems.

    Reply
  17. China and India needs to reduce their consumption of oil. They both need to reduce car and truck usage and to use cars and trucks with higher mpg. They can reduce car usage by focusing on mass transportation. They can reduce truck usage by increasing cargo rail. They can improve mpg by going high mpg engines hybrid and EV. If they were aggressive they could half their oil usage in 20 years.

    Reply
  18. Italy is not an ally of the US. It is a vassal state. A satrapy. Always has been since we invaded and conquered it back in the 40s.

    Reply
  19. Italy is not an ally of the US.It is a vassal state. A satrapy.Always has been since we invaded and conquered it back in the 40s.

    Reply
  20. Heather Willauer make jet fuel from sea water and energy, same technique can be used with massproduced high temperature nuklear reaktors but cheapier. I guess that oil will lose it global power before 2030. If not, then the scientifically rejected carbon dioxide threat will fall. The climate war, neither is it about climate or the environment, just about power.

    Reply
  21. Depends on what you mean by “German Aviation”. The German air force was not just a list of technical specifications. It needed good planes, true, but it also needed enough of them, and enough fuel to fly them, and good quality fuel. It needed enough pilots. It needed trained pilots, which means fuel for the flight schools and fuel for practice for the existing pilots. I thought it was fairly well established that even in 1940 the Germans lost the Battle of Britain, in that over the period the number of British aircraft and pilots was increasing while the number of German aircraft and pilots was decreasing. By D-day the allies had close to air superiority of most of western Europe, and could run daylight bombing raids right into Germany. They weren’t “safe”, the German airforce were still fighting to the end. But the allied aviation was clearly way ahead of the germans at this point.

    Reply
  22. Its amazing Mr. Corleone how history seems to be repeating itself. An isolated leadership with apparently little experience with a strong leader perhaps basing their opinions on deal with crooked globalist who reassure that they can get rid of Donald or contain him? Brian Wang has covered the PLA’s hypersonic missile development over the years (first strike weapons!) and in the last few weeks the US response.

    Reply
  23. Heather Willauer make jet fuel from sea water and energy same technique can be used with massproduced high temperature nuklear reaktors but cheapier. I guess that oil will lose it global power before 2030. If not then the scientifically rejected carbon dioxide threat will fall. The climate war neither is it about climate or the environment just about power.

    Reply
  24. Depends on what you mean by German Aviation””.The German air force was not just a list of technical specifications. It needed good planes”” true but it also needed enough of them and enough fuel to fly them and good quality fuel. It needed enough pilots. It needed trained pilots which means fuel for the flight schools and fuel for practice for the existing pilots.I thought it was fairly well established that even in 1940 the Germans lost the Battle of Britain in that over the period the number of British aircraft and pilots was increasing while the number of German aircraft and pilots was decreasing. By D-day the allies had close to air superiority of most of western Europe”” and could run daylight bombing raids right into Germany. They weren’t “”””safe”””””””” the German airforce were still fighting to the end. But the allied aviation was clearly way ahead of the germans at this point.”””

    Reply
  25. WW2 Japan was way less powerful than China today so the comparison is irrelevant “Sorry, but doing business with a government aimed at killing the US off, is, in no way, worth it. ” -> how do you know since no one as powerful as CHina today as seen has been trying? “An alliance should never be a suicide pact, and if we are harming you, pull out. You need to take care of yourselves.” -> I need to agreeon this

    Reply
  26. Sorry, but doing business with a government aimed at killing the US off, is, in no way, worth it. Look for Mr. Wang’s articles on Next Big Future and inform yourself of the decision by the Party, to imitate WW2 Japan. Also, if you think that being connected to the US is a hazard for Italy, then by all means change things. An alliance should never be a suicide pact, and if we are harming you, pull out. You need to take care of yourselves.

    Reply
  27. Its amazing, Mr. Corleone, how history seems to be repeating itself. An isolated leadership, with apparently little experience with a strong leader, perhaps basing their opinions on deal with crooked globalist, who reassure that they can get rid of Donald, or contain him? Brian Wang has covered the PLA’s hypersonic missile development, over the years (first strike weapons!), and, in the last few weeks, the US response.

    Reply
  28. WW2 Japan was way less powerful than China today so the comparison is irrelevant Sorry but doing business with a government aimed at killing the US off is in no way” worth it. “”-> how do you know since no one as powerful as CHina today as seen has been trying? “”””An alliance should never be a suicide pact”” and if we are harming you”” pull out. You need to take care of yourselves.””””-> I need to agreeon this”””

    Reply
  29. Sorry but doing business with a government aimed at killing the US off is in no way worth it. Look for Mr. Wang’s articles on Next Big Future and inform yourself of the decision by the Party to imitate WW2 Japan. Also if you think that being connected to the US is a hazard for Italy then by all means change things. An alliance should never be a suicide pact and if we are harming you pull out. You need to take care of yourselves.

    Reply
  30. China is a maritime dependent nation with a Brown Water Navy. If the Shias and the Sunis start going after each other’s oil platforms in the Persian Gulf, China will have to use it’s navy to go in and protect the straits of Hormuz and the platforms. They will have no other option.

    Reply
  31. Replace “Germany” with “Japan” and I think a fairer assessment. China will be foreign energy dependent for a long time coming. Their nuclear program is a disaster and without US support won’t go anywhere. Renewables are in places not connected to the grid and don’t provide base power anyway. Coal is now capped, but the energy deficit is being plugged with natgas and oil. I don’t think a war will help them secure energy sources, rather the opposite.

    Reply
  32. China is a maritime dependent nation with a Brown Water Navy. If the Shias and the Sunis start going after each other’s oil platforms in the Persian Gulf China will have to use it’s navy to go in and protect the straits of Hormuz and the platforms. They will have no other option.

    Reply
  33. Replace Germany”” with “”””Japan”””” and I think a fairer assessment. China will be foreign energy dependent for a long time coming. Their nuclear program is a disaster and without US support won’t go anywhere. Renewables are in places not connected to the grid and don’t provide base power anyway. Coal is now capped”” but the energy deficit is being plugged with natgas and oil. I don’t think a war will help them secure energy sources”” rather the opposite.”””

    Reply
  34. To think that we (USA) are in a position of strength vs. the Chinese, who manufacture literally everything we buy, because we could “pull manufacturing from China” is laughable. China is in the position of strength.

    Reply
  35. They have plenty of Russian and French support for their nuclear program. With 40 GW of installed capacity, they are most definitely competent on their own – methinks. Honestly, China and Russia, and the Koreans are leaving US behind in nuclear energy. To think otherwise is not humble.

    Reply
  36. Still need CO and H2 feedstock for ‘synthetic’ fuel; don’t see how we’re going to get $40/bbl from that. What is the cheapest H2 source? Natural gas. Since the EPR and AP-1000 together have accumulated only about one man-month of operational history and had woefully underestimated FOAK construction costs, we can’t say that they take less resources to build/operate compared to GenII. Some GenII were built for well under $1B. Cost savings for operations will come only by reducing security and functions like Emergency Planning and a dozen other departments mandated by regulation.

    Reply
  37. Well, as we speak nuclear is still only 4% of their total power supply. Building out that much capacity so quickly is not exactly a risk-free endeavor. Their track-record has so far been very poor. (e.g., AP1000)

    Reply
  38. Sure. Better if the engineers explain. NEI magazine “nuclear in china why the slowdown” August 10 2017. Cost overruns, poor design, not enough expertise, too fast too soon. The 2015 Tianjin explosion. The CNNSA (nuke safety administration) was bold enough to post a series of mishaps (“pushing wrong buttons”) which is pretty remarkable given China views their nuke energy program as top secret. “China’s nuclear emergency response [system] still has certain inadequacies in terms of technology, equipment, human resources, capacity and standards” according to the official Chinese State Council Information Office. If this is what they say in public, I wonder what is really going on?

    Reply
  39. There is a problem with using a first strike weapon on the US. If you use one you need to kill the US. If you don’t your country will be the dead one. Look what happened to the Japanese and all they did was sink some ships. In other words, don’t start what you are not prepared to finish.

    Reply
  40. China had olmost non nuclear industry ten years aho, now they have 40 reactors in operation (both EPR and AP-1000) and 20 under construction. China may start construction of 32 more reactors before 2020. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Modern GenIII+ demand 1/3 less resources to build and operate and builds for 50% longer lifetime than the GenII+ that out compete coal during the 1980 th. The potential with long series is much greater than solar and wind. Ad to that SMR with high enough temperature for producing og synthetic fuel ceaper than from oil for $40/ bbr.

    Reply
  41. They have plenty of Russian and French support for their nuclear program. With 40 GW of installed capacity they are most definitely competent on their own – methinks. Honestly China and Russia and the Koreans are leaving US behind in nuclear energy. To think otherwise is not humble.

    Reply
  42. Still need CO and H2 feedstock for ‘synthetic’ fuel; don’t see how we’re going to get $40/bbl from that. What is the cheapest H2 source? Natural gas.Since the EPR and AP-1000 together have accumulated only about one man-month of operational history and had woefully underestimated FOAK construction costs we can’t say that they take less resources to build/operate compared to GenII. Some GenII were built for well under $1B. Cost savings for operations will come only by reducing security and functions like Emergency Planning and a dozen other departments mandated by regulation.

    Reply
  43. Well as we speak nuclear is still only 4{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of their total power supply. Building out that much capacity so quickly is not exactly a risk-free endeavor. Their track-record has so far been very poor. (e.g. AP1000)

    Reply
  44. Sure. Better if the engineers explain. NEI magazine uclear in china why the slowdown”” August 10 2017. Cost overruns”” poor design not enough expertise”” too fast too soon. The 2015 Tianjin explosion. The CNNSA (nuke safety administration) was bold enough to post a series of mishaps (“”””pushing wrong buttons””””) which is pretty remarkable given China views their nuke energy program as top secret. “China’s nuclear emergency response [system] still has certain inadequacies in terms of technology”” equipment human resources capacity and standards” according to the official Chinese State Council Information Office. If this is what they say in public”” I wonder what is really going on?”””””””

    Reply
  45. There is a problem with using a first strike weapon on the US. If you use one you need to kill the US. If you don’t your country will be the dead one. Look what happened to the Japanese and all they did was sink some ships. In other words don’t start what you are not prepared to finish.

    Reply
  46. China had olmost non nuclear industry ten years aho now they have 40 reactors in operation (both EPR and AP-1000) and 20 under construction. China may start construction of 32 more reactors before 2020.http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Modern GenIII+ demand 1/3 less resources to build and operate and builds for 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} longer lifetime than the GenII+ that out compete coal during the 1980 th. The potential with long series is much greater than solar and wind. Ad to that SMR with high enough temperature for producing og synthetic fuel ceaper than from oil for $40/ bbr.

    Reply
  47. It’s kinda hard to make a poorly designed PWR – IMO so long as the full pressure system is built to ASME specifications (is legitimate) then everything else is cultural.

    Reply
  48. Yeah, I heard they were slowing down too. I don’t really think the day will come when we are asking for Chinese expertise, unless they demonstrate some really nice Gen4 technology and we decide to adopt it. We should certainly cozy up to them with regards to their pebble bed reactors and MSR experiments. They volunteered to put these facilities in their backyard – so we should ask for invitations. Same with the BN fast reactors in Russia. So, nuclear power plants are not jet engines; they are rather simple. You could obtain commercial licenses for top notch software to manage the fuel cycle for about $1M (Studsvik) or use government codes (PARCS) for a fraction of that cost. There are probably only 100 piece parts in a BWR, if you neglect fasteners, and the materials are COTS…. You can’t really lose an advantage in this technology – it has become public domain.

    Reply
  49. We’ve all heard of the iodine process for H2 production – it isn’t really used. High temp electrolysis will be used if anything. Still not $40/bbl.

    Reply
  50. I’m a huge fan of nuclear, especially MSRs. But the Chinese forging full speed ahead with reactors is scary – their track record for precise and complex engineering is not great. Their solar and wind investments are idiotic. The safest is good old CCGT (especially with the newer Japanese turbines) if they can ever wean themselves off coal.

    Reply
  51. Rosatom, yes. The French have gotten pretty frustrated, Taishan finally went on-line, and the CNNC still hasn’t signed up for old-Areva to move on with next project, though Framatom is deliving some sub-systems. But yeah, I hear ya. new reactors in the US? zero . China? Lots planned but I can’t find the latest official approvals from CNNC. Do you know if they have given the green light to any this year?

    Reply
  52. Heather takes carbon and hydrogen out of sea water, but it is much cheaper to spit water with heat from combustible waste. Iodine and sulfur oxide as catalysts provide 150C for H2 and 850C for an oxygen atom carbon dioxide from combustion. Of course, it is possible to extract heat from modern nuclear and carbon dioxide from the nearest coal power plants.

    Reply
  53. It’s kinda hard to make a poorly designed PWR – IMO so long as the full pressure system is built to ASME specifications (is legitimate) then everything else is cultural.

    Reply
  54. Yeah I heard they were slowing down too.I don’t really think the day will come when we are asking for Chinese expertise unless they demonstrate some really nice Gen4 technology and we decide to adopt it. We should certainly cozy up to them with regards to their pebble bed reactors and MSR experiments. They volunteered to put these facilities in their backyard – so we should ask for invitations. Same with the BN fast reactors in Russia.So nuclear power plants are not jet engines; they are rather simple. You could obtain commercial licenses for top notch software to manage the fuel cycle for about $1M (Studsvik) or use government codes (PARCS) for a fraction of that cost. There are probably only 100 piece parts in a BWR if you neglect fasteners and the materials are COTS…. You can’t really lose an advantage in this technology – it has become public domain.

    Reply
  55. We’ve all heard of the iodine process for H2 production – it isn’t really used. High temp electrolysis will be used if anything. Still not $40/bbl.

    Reply
  56. I’m a huge fan of nuclear especially MSRs. But the Chinese forging full speed ahead with reactors is scary – their track record for precise and complex engineering is not great. Their solar and wind investments are idiotic. The safest is good old CCGT (especially with the newer Japanese turbines) if they can ever wean themselves off coal.

    Reply
  57. Rosatom yes. The French have gotten pretty frustrated Taishan finally went on-line and the CNNC still hasn’t signed up for old-Areva to move on with next project though Framatom is deliving some sub-systems. But yeah I hear ya. new reactors in the US? zero . China? Lots planned but I can’t find the latest official approvals from CNNC. Do you know if they have given the green light to any this year?

    Reply
  58. Heather takes carbon and hydrogen out of sea water but it is much cheaper to spit water with heat from combustible waste. Iodine and sulfur oxide as catalysts provide 150C for H2 and 850C for an oxygen atom carbon dioxide from combustion. Of course it is possible to extract heat from modern nuclear and carbon dioxide from the nearest coal power plants.

    Reply
  59. To think that we (USA) are in a position of strength vs. the Chinese who manufacture literally everything we buy because we could pull manufacturing from China”” is laughable. China is in the position of strength.”””

    Reply
  60. Sink just one oil tanker in the strait of Hormuz and that’s that. No more oil. Oil pipelines are buried under ground. You might find a few facilities above ground but those can be fixed and repaired. But bombing those means not only war with China but war with some other countries also.

    Reply
  61. Sink just one oil tanker in the strait of Hormuz and that’s that. No more oil. Oil pipelines are buried under ground. You might find a few facilities above ground but those can be fixed and repaired. But bombing those means not only war with China but war with some other countries also.

    Reply
  62. Cultural meaning? – The safety officers get appointed on merit, not patronage – Staff don’t turn over every 12 months, with a minimum acceptable training time of 2 years – NOBODY would be willing to do a highly dangerous “let’s turn all the safety controls off” test just because some bigwig asked for a demonstration – Or because it’s after hours so the safety guy has gone home, so we don’t need all that bothersome stuff now until he comes in tomorrow – Anyone caught dealing in sub-spec concrete would be be prosecuted, not just someone who both did that and was on the wrong side in a political dispute – Everyone in the building would find crumbling or failing items to be unacceptable, rather than “oh it’s 5 years old, what do you expect. Anyway not my job.” That sort of thing? (I speak based on my very limited experience with Chinese construction and manufacturing.)

    Reply
  63. Cultural meaning?- The safety officers get appointed on merit not patronage- Staff don’t turn over every 12 months with a minimum acceptable training time of 2 years- NOBODY would be willing to do a highly dangerous let’s turn all the safety controls off”” test just because some bigwig asked for a demonstration- Or because it’s after hours so the safety guy has gone home”” so we don’t need all that bothersome stuff now until he comes in tomorrow- Anyone caught dealing in sub-spec concrete would be be prosecuted not just someone who both did that and was on the wrong side in a political dispute- Everyone in the building would find crumbling or failing items to be unacceptable”” rather than “”””oh it’s 5 years old”””” what do you expect. Anyway not my job.””””That sort of thing?(I speak based on my very limited experience with Chinese construction and manufacturing.)”””

    Reply
  64. I expect that the Chinese are organized and educated enough to specify, procure, inspect, deploy nuclear components of the required grade. I expect they have been brought up this curve by the US, French, Russians, which all have similar quality requirements/codes when it comes to nuclear installations and have advised China over the last 30 years. A couple hundred cubic meters of sub-par concrete will probably go un-noticed most places – and would probably still do it’s job. Even a breached containment, one that no longer holds pressure, provides significant “hold-up” for melted core effluent. That isn’t what it is designed for, but a porous boundary is still a boundary. I heard that the Canadians had the Romanians tear down a lot of concrete at Cernevoda back in the late communist period because the containment wall was not the specified/required wall thickness. Build it right the first time or tear it down, and build it back up spending double.

    Reply
  65. I expect that the Chinese are organized and educated enough to specify procure inspect deploy nuclear components of the required grade. I expect they have been brought up this curve by the US French Russians which all have similar quality requirements/codes when it comes to nuclear installations and have advised China over the last 30 years.A couple hundred cubic meters of sub-par concrete will probably go un-noticed most places – and would probably still do it’s job. Even a breached containment one that no longer holds pressure provides significant hold-up”” for melted core effluent. That isn’t what it is designed for”” but a porous boundary is still a boundary.I heard that the Canadians had the Romanians tear down a lot of concrete at Cernevoda back in the late communist period because the containment wall was not the specified/required wall thickness.Build it right the first time or tear it down”” and build it back up spending double.”””

    Reply
  66. US policy makers put sanctions on Iran and China while comfortably shaking hands, licking you know what and doing business with Saudi Arabia.

    Reply
  67. US policy makers put sanctions on Iran and China while comfortably shaking hands licking you know what and doing business with Saudi Arabia.

    Reply
  68. ISBN 1 848841 83-3 , book by Wing Commander John Stubbington…. shows from official records just how inaccurate WW2 bombing was in reality. Focussed attacks upon oil targets produced poor results , but massed attacks eventually destroyed so much of enemy transport routes that coal, very important for synthetics, became a critical shortage. Dispersion of manufacturing plant involved large overheads of road and rail transport. Appendix P of the book gives the main facts. Nowadays precision bombing is a given, no pipeline or buried fibre is safe. Times have changed. I do not think that the life of a non-combatant will be any less unpleasant in the event of a conflict.

    Reply
  69. ISBN 1 848841 83-3 book by Wing Commander John Stubbington…. shows from official records just how inaccurate WW2 bombing was in reality.Focussed attacks upon oil targets produced poor results but massed attacks eventually destroyed so much of enemy transport routes that coal very important for synthetics became a critical shortage. Dispersion of manufacturing plant involved large overheadsof road and rail transport. Appendix P of the book gives the main facts.Nowadays precision bombing is a given no pipeline or buried fibre is safe.Times have changed. I do not think that the life of a non-combatant will be any less unpleasant in the event of a conflict.”

    Reply
  70. ISBN 1 848841 83-3 , book by Wing Commander John Stubbington…. shows from official records just how inaccurate WW2 bombing was in reality. Focussed attacks upon oil targets produced poor results , but massed attacks eventually destroyed so much of enemy transport routes that coal, very important for synthetics, became a critical shortage. Dispersion of manufacturing plant involved large overheads of road and rail transport. Appendix P of the book gives the main facts. Nowadays precision bombing is a given, no pipeline or buried fibre is safe. Times have changed. I do not think that the life of a non-combatant will be any less unpleasant in the event of a conflict.

    Reply
  71. ISBN 1 848841 83-3 book by Wing Commander John Stubbington…. shows from official records just how inaccurate WW2 bombing was in reality.Focussed attacks upon oil targets produced poor results but massed attacks eventually destroyed so much of enemy transport routes that coal very important for synthetics became a critical shortage. Dispersion of manufacturing plant involved large overheadsof road and rail transport. Appendix P of the book gives the main facts.Nowadays precision bombing is a given no pipeline or buried fibre is safe.Times have changed. I do not think that the life of a non-combatant will be any less unpleasant in the event of a conflict.”

    Reply
  72. ISBN 1 848841 83-3 , book by Wing Commander John Stubbington…. shows from official records just how inaccurate WW2 bombing was in reality.

    Focussed attacks upon oil targets produced poor results , but massed attacks eventually destroyed so much of enemy transport routes that coal, very important for synthetics, became a critical shortage. Dispersion of manufacturing plant involved large overheads
    of road and rail transport.
    Appendix P of the book gives the main facts.

    Nowadays precision bombing is a given, no pipeline or buried fibre is safe.
    Times have changed. I do not think that the life of a non-combatant will be any less unpleasant in the event of a conflict.

    Reply
  73. US policy makers put sanctions on Iran and China while comfortably shaking hands, licking you know what and doing business with Saudi Arabia.

    Reply
  74. US policy makers put sanctions on Iran and China while comfortably shaking hands licking you know what and doing business with Saudi Arabia.

    Reply
  75. I expect that the Chinese are organized and educated enough to specify, procure, inspect, deploy nuclear components of the required grade. I expect they have been brought up this curve by the US, French, Russians, which all have similar quality requirements/codes when it comes to nuclear installations and have advised China over the last 30 years. A couple hundred cubic meters of sub-par concrete will probably go un-noticed most places – and would probably still do it’s job. Even a breached containment, one that no longer holds pressure, provides significant “hold-up” for melted core effluent. That isn’t what it is designed for, but a porous boundary is still a boundary. I heard that the Canadians had the Romanians tear down a lot of concrete at Cernevoda back in the late communist period because the containment wall was not the specified/required wall thickness. Build it right the first time or tear it down, and build it back up spending double.

    Reply
  76. I expect that the Chinese are organized and educated enough to specify procure inspect deploy nuclear components of the required grade. I expect they have been brought up this curve by the US French Russians which all have similar quality requirements/codes when it comes to nuclear installations and have advised China over the last 30 years.A couple hundred cubic meters of sub-par concrete will probably go un-noticed most places – and would probably still do it’s job. Even a breached containment one that no longer holds pressure provides significant hold-up”” for melted core effluent. That isn’t what it is designed for”” but a porous boundary is still a boundary.I heard that the Canadians had the Romanians tear down a lot of concrete at Cernevoda back in the late communist period because the containment wall was not the specified/required wall thickness.Build it right the first time or tear it down”” and build it back up spending double.”””

    Reply
  77. I expect that the Chinese are organized and educated enough to specify, procure, inspect, deploy nuclear components of the required grade. I expect they have been brought up this curve by the US, French, Russians, which all have similar quality requirements/codes when it comes to nuclear installations and have advised China over the last 30 years.

    A couple hundred cubic meters of sub-par concrete will probably go un-noticed most places – and would probably still do it’s job. Even a breached containment, one that no longer holds pressure, provides significant “hold-up” for melted core effluent. That isn’t what it is designed for, but a porous boundary is still a boundary.

    I heard that the Canadians had the Romanians tear down a lot of concrete at Cernevoda back in the late communist period because the containment wall was not the specified/required wall thickness.

    Build it right the first time or tear it down, and build it back up spending double.

    Reply
  78. Cultural meaning? – The safety officers get appointed on merit, not patronage – Staff don’t turn over every 12 months, with a minimum acceptable training time of 2 years – NOBODY would be willing to do a highly dangerous “let’s turn all the safety controls off” test just because some bigwig asked for a demonstration – Or because it’s after hours so the safety guy has gone home, so we don’t need all that bothersome stuff now until he comes in tomorrow – Anyone caught dealing in sub-spec concrete would be be prosecuted, not just someone who both did that and was on the wrong side in a political dispute – Everyone in the building would find crumbling or failing items to be unacceptable, rather than “oh it’s 5 years old, what do you expect. Anyway not my job.” That sort of thing? (I speak based on my very limited experience with Chinese construction and manufacturing.)

    Reply
  79. Cultural meaning?- The safety officers get appointed on merit not patronage- Staff don’t turn over every 12 months with a minimum acceptable training time of 2 years- NOBODY would be willing to do a highly dangerous let’s turn all the safety controls off”” test just because some bigwig asked for a demonstration- Or because it’s after hours so the safety guy has gone home”” so we don’t need all that bothersome stuff now until he comes in tomorrow- Anyone caught dealing in sub-spec concrete would be be prosecuted not just someone who both did that and was on the wrong side in a political dispute- Everyone in the building would find crumbling or failing items to be unacceptable”” rather than “”””oh it’s 5 years old”””” what do you expect. Anyway not my job.””””That sort of thing?(I speak based on my very limited experience with Chinese construction and manufacturing.)”””

    Reply
  80. Sink just one oil tanker in the strait of Hormuz and that’s that. No more oil. Oil pipelines are buried under ground. You might find a few facilities above ground but those can be fixed and repaired. But bombing those means not only war with China but war with some other countries also.

    Reply
  81. Sink just one oil tanker in the strait of Hormuz and that’s that. No more oil. Oil pipelines are buried under ground. You might find a few facilities above ground but those can be fixed and repaired. But bombing those means not only war with China but war with some other countries also.

    Reply
  82. It’s kinda hard to make a poorly designed PWR – IMO so long as the full pressure system is built to ASME specifications (is legitimate) then everything else is cultural.

    Reply
  83. It’s kinda hard to make a poorly designed PWR – IMO so long as the full pressure system is built to ASME specifications (is legitimate) then everything else is cultural.

    Reply
  84. Yeah, I heard they were slowing down too. I don’t really think the day will come when we are asking for Chinese expertise, unless they demonstrate some really nice Gen4 technology and we decide to adopt it. We should certainly cozy up to them with regards to their pebble bed reactors and MSR experiments. They volunteered to put these facilities in their backyard – so we should ask for invitations. Same with the BN fast reactors in Russia. So, nuclear power plants are not jet engines; they are rather simple. You could obtain commercial licenses for top notch software to manage the fuel cycle for about $1M (Studsvik) or use government codes (PARCS) for a fraction of that cost. There are probably only 100 piece parts in a BWR, if you neglect fasteners, and the materials are COTS…. You can’t really lose an advantage in this technology – it has become public domain.

    Reply
  85. Yeah I heard they were slowing down too.I don’t really think the day will come when we are asking for Chinese expertise unless they demonstrate some really nice Gen4 technology and we decide to adopt it. We should certainly cozy up to them with regards to their pebble bed reactors and MSR experiments. They volunteered to put these facilities in their backyard – so we should ask for invitations. Same with the BN fast reactors in Russia.So nuclear power plants are not jet engines; they are rather simple. You could obtain commercial licenses for top notch software to manage the fuel cycle for about $1M (Studsvik) or use government codes (PARCS) for a fraction of that cost. There are probably only 100 piece parts in a BWR if you neglect fasteners and the materials are COTS…. You can’t really lose an advantage in this technology – it has become public domain.

    Reply
  86. We’ve all heard of the iodine process for H2 production – it isn’t really used. High temp electrolysis will be used if anything. Still not $40/bbl.

    Reply
  87. We’ve all heard of the iodine process for H2 production – it isn’t really used. High temp electrolysis will be used if anything. Still not $40/bbl.

    Reply
  88. I’m a huge fan of nuclear, especially MSRs. But the Chinese forging full speed ahead with reactors is scary – their track record for precise and complex engineering is not great. Their solar and wind investments are idiotic. The safest is good old CCGT (especially with the newer Japanese turbines) if they can ever wean themselves off coal.

    Reply
  89. I’m a huge fan of nuclear especially MSRs. But the Chinese forging full speed ahead with reactors is scary – their track record for precise and complex engineering is not great. Their solar and wind investments are idiotic. The safest is good old CCGT (especially with the newer Japanese turbines) if they can ever wean themselves off coal.

    Reply
  90. Rosatom, yes. The French have gotten pretty frustrated, Taishan finally went on-line, and the CNNC still hasn’t signed up for old-Areva to move on with next project, though Framatom is deliving some sub-systems. But yeah, I hear ya. new reactors in the US? zero . China? Lots planned but I can’t find the latest official approvals from CNNC. Do you know if they have given the green light to any this year?

    Reply
  91. Rosatom yes. The French have gotten pretty frustrated Taishan finally went on-line and the CNNC still hasn’t signed up for old-Areva to move on with next project though Framatom is deliving some sub-systems. But yeah I hear ya. new reactors in the US? zero . China? Lots planned but I can’t find the latest official approvals from CNNC. Do you know if they have given the green light to any this year?

    Reply
  92. Heather takes carbon and hydrogen out of sea water, but it is much cheaper to spit water with heat from combustible waste. Iodine and sulfur oxide as catalysts provide 150C for H2 and 850C for an oxygen atom carbon dioxide from combustion. Of course, it is possible to extract heat from modern nuclear and carbon dioxide from the nearest coal power plants.

    Reply
  93. Heather takes carbon and hydrogen out of sea water but it is much cheaper to spit water with heat from combustible waste. Iodine and sulfur oxide as catalysts provide 150C for H2 and 850C for an oxygen atom carbon dioxide from combustion. Of course it is possible to extract heat from modern nuclear and carbon dioxide from the nearest coal power plants.

    Reply
  94. To think that we (USA) are in a position of strength vs. the Chinese, who manufacture literally everything we buy, because we could “pull manufacturing from China” is laughable. China is in the position of strength.

    Reply
  95. To think that we (USA) are in a position of strength vs. the Chinese who manufacture literally everything we buy because we could pull manufacturing from China”” is laughable. China is in the position of strength.”””

    Reply
  96. They have plenty of Russian and French support for their nuclear program. With 40 GW of installed capacity, they are most definitely competent on their own – methinks. Honestly, China and Russia, and the Koreans are leaving US behind in nuclear energy. To think otherwise is not humble.

    Reply
  97. They have plenty of Russian and French support for their nuclear program. With 40 GW of installed capacity they are most definitely competent on their own – methinks. Honestly China and Russia and the Koreans are leaving US behind in nuclear energy. To think otherwise is not humble.

    Reply
  98. Still need CO and H2 feedstock for ‘synthetic’ fuel; don’t see how we’re going to get $40/bbl from that. What is the cheapest H2 source? Natural gas. Since the EPR and AP-1000 together have accumulated only about one man-month of operational history and had woefully underestimated FOAK construction costs, we can’t say that they take less resources to build/operate compared to GenII. Some GenII were built for well under $1B. Cost savings for operations will come only by reducing security and functions like Emergency Planning and a dozen other departments mandated by regulation.

    Reply
  99. Still need CO and H2 feedstock for ‘synthetic’ fuel; don’t see how we’re going to get $40/bbl from that. What is the cheapest H2 source? Natural gas.Since the EPR and AP-1000 together have accumulated only about one man-month of operational history and had woefully underestimated FOAK construction costs we can’t say that they take less resources to build/operate compared to GenII. Some GenII were built for well under $1B. Cost savings for operations will come only by reducing security and functions like Emergency Planning and a dozen other departments mandated by regulation.

    Reply
  100. Well, as we speak nuclear is still only 4% of their total power supply. Building out that much capacity so quickly is not exactly a risk-free endeavor. Their track-record has so far been very poor. (e.g., AP1000)

    Reply
  101. Well as we speak nuclear is still only 4{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of their total power supply. Building out that much capacity so quickly is not exactly a risk-free endeavor. Their track-record has so far been very poor. (e.g. AP1000)

    Reply
  102. Sure. Better if the engineers explain. NEI magazine “nuclear in china why the slowdown” August 10 2017. Cost overruns, poor design, not enough expertise, too fast too soon. The 2015 Tianjin explosion. The CNNSA (nuke safety administration) was bold enough to post a series of mishaps (“pushing wrong buttons”) which is pretty remarkable given China views their nuke energy program as top secret. “China’s nuclear emergency response [system] still has certain inadequacies in terms of technology, equipment, human resources, capacity and standards” according to the official Chinese State Council Information Office. If this is what they say in public, I wonder what is really going on?

    Reply
  103. Sure. Better if the engineers explain. NEI magazine uclear in china why the slowdown”” August 10 2017. Cost overruns”” poor design not enough expertise”” too fast too soon. The 2015 Tianjin explosion. The CNNSA (nuke safety administration) was bold enough to post a series of mishaps (“”””pushing wrong buttons””””) which is pretty remarkable given China views their nuke energy program as top secret. “China’s nuclear emergency response [system] still has certain inadequacies in terms of technology”” equipment human resources capacity and standards” according to the official Chinese State Council Information Office. If this is what they say in public”” I wonder what is really going on?”””””””

    Reply
  104. Cultural meaning?
    – The safety officers get appointed on merit, not patronage
    – Staff don’t turn over every 12 months, with a minimum acceptable training time of 2 years
    – NOBODY would be willing to do a highly dangerous “let’s turn all the safety controls off” test just because some bigwig asked for a demonstration
    – Or because it’s after hours so the safety guy has gone home, so we don’t need all that bothersome stuff now until he comes in tomorrow
    – Anyone caught dealing in sub-spec concrete would be be prosecuted, not just someone who both did that and was on the wrong side in a political dispute
    – Everyone in the building would find crumbling or failing items to be unacceptable, rather than “oh it’s 5 years old, what do you expect. Anyway not my job.”

    That sort of thing?

    (I speak based on my very limited experience with Chinese construction and manufacturing.)

    Reply
  105. There is a problem with using a first strike weapon on the US. If you use one you need to kill the US. If you don’t your country will be the dead one. Look what happened to the Japanese and all they did was sink some ships. In other words, don’t start what you are not prepared to finish.

    Reply
  106. There is a problem with using a first strike weapon on the US. If you use one you need to kill the US. If you don’t your country will be the dead one. Look what happened to the Japanese and all they did was sink some ships. In other words don’t start what you are not prepared to finish.

    Reply
  107. Sink just one oil tanker in the strait of Hormuz and that’s that. No more oil. Oil pipelines are buried under ground. You might find a few facilities above ground but those can be fixed and repaired. But bombing those means not only war with China but war with some other countries also.

    Reply
  108. China had olmost non nuclear industry ten years aho, now they have 40 reactors in operation (both EPR and AP-1000) and 20 under construction. China may start construction of 32 more reactors before 2020. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Modern GenIII+ demand 1/3 less resources to build and operate and builds for 50% longer lifetime than the GenII+ that out compete coal during the 1980 th. The potential with long series is much greater than solar and wind. Ad to that SMR with high enough temperature for producing og synthetic fuel ceaper than from oil for $40/ bbr.

    Reply
  109. China had olmost non nuclear industry ten years aho now they have 40 reactors in operation (both EPR and AP-1000) and 20 under construction. China may start construction of 32 more reactors before 2020.http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Modern GenIII+ demand 1/3 less resources to build and operate and builds for 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} longer lifetime than the GenII+ that out compete coal during the 1980 th. The potential with long series is much greater than solar and wind. Ad to that SMR with high enough temperature for producing og synthetic fuel ceaper than from oil for $40/ bbr.

    Reply
  110. China is a maritime dependent nation with a Brown Water Navy. If the Shias and the Sunis start going after each other’s oil platforms in the Persian Gulf, China will have to use it’s navy to go in and protect the straits of Hormuz and the platforms. They will have no other option.

    Reply
  111. China is a maritime dependent nation with a Brown Water Navy. If the Shias and the Sunis start going after each other’s oil platforms in the Persian Gulf China will have to use it’s navy to go in and protect the straits of Hormuz and the platforms. They will have no other option.

    Reply
  112. Replace “Germany” with “Japan” and I think a fairer assessment. China will be foreign energy dependent for a long time coming. Their nuclear program is a disaster and without US support won’t go anywhere. Renewables are in places not connected to the grid and don’t provide base power anyway. Coal is now capped, but the energy deficit is being plugged with natgas and oil. I don’t think a war will help them secure energy sources, rather the opposite.

    Reply
  113. Replace Germany”” with “”””Japan”””” and I think a fairer assessment. China will be foreign energy dependent for a long time coming. Their nuclear program is a disaster and without US support won’t go anywhere. Renewables are in places not connected to the grid and don’t provide base power anyway. Coal is now capped”” but the energy deficit is being plugged with natgas and oil. I don’t think a war will help them secure energy sources”” rather the opposite.”””

    Reply
  114. WW2 Japan was way less powerful than China today so the comparison is irrelevant “Sorry, but doing business with a government aimed at killing the US off, is, in no way, worth it. ” -> how do you know since no one as powerful as CHina today as seen has been trying? “An alliance should never be a suicide pact, and if we are harming you, pull out. You need to take care of yourselves.” -> I need to agreeon this

    Reply
  115. WW2 Japan was way less powerful than China today so the comparison is irrelevant Sorry but doing business with a government aimed at killing the US off is in no way” worth it. “”-> how do you know since no one as powerful as CHina today as seen has been trying? “”””An alliance should never be a suicide pact”” and if we are harming you”” pull out. You need to take care of yourselves.””””-> I need to agreeon this”””

    Reply
  116. Sorry, but doing business with a government aimed at killing the US off, is, in no way, worth it. Look for Mr. Wang’s articles on Next Big Future and inform yourself of the decision by the Party, to imitate WW2 Japan. Also, if you think that being connected to the US is a hazard for Italy, then by all means change things. An alliance should never be a suicide pact, and if we are harming you, pull out. You need to take care of yourselves.

    Reply
  117. Sorry but doing business with a government aimed at killing the US off is in no way worth it. Look for Mr. Wang’s articles on Next Big Future and inform yourself of the decision by the Party to imitate WW2 Japan. Also if you think that being connected to the US is a hazard for Italy then by all means change things. An alliance should never be a suicide pact and if we are harming you pull out. You need to take care of yourselves.

    Reply
  118. Its amazing, Mr. Corleone, how history seems to be repeating itself. An isolated leadership, with apparently little experience with a strong leader, perhaps basing their opinions on deal with crooked globalist, who reassure that they can get rid of Donald, or contain him? Brian Wang has covered the PLA’s hypersonic missile development, over the years (first strike weapons!), and, in the last few weeks, the US response.

    Reply
  119. Its amazing Mr. Corleone how history seems to be repeating itself. An isolated leadership with apparently little experience with a strong leader perhaps basing their opinions on deal with crooked globalist who reassure that they can get rid of Donald or contain him? Brian Wang has covered the PLA’s hypersonic missile development over the years (first strike weapons!) and in the last few weeks the US response.

    Reply
  120. Heather Willauer make jet fuel from sea water and energy, same technique can be used with massproduced high temperature nuklear reaktors but cheapier. I guess that oil will lose it global power before 2030. If not, then the scientifically rejected carbon dioxide threat will fall. The climate war, neither is it about climate or the environment, just about power.

    Reply
  121. Heather Willauer make jet fuel from sea water and energy same technique can be used with massproduced high temperature nuklear reaktors but cheapier. I guess that oil will lose it global power before 2030. If not then the scientifically rejected carbon dioxide threat will fall. The climate war neither is it about climate or the environment just about power.

    Reply
  122. Depends on what you mean by “German Aviation”. The German air force was not just a list of technical specifications. It needed good planes, true, but it also needed enough of them, and enough fuel to fly them, and good quality fuel. It needed enough pilots. It needed trained pilots, which means fuel for the flight schools and fuel for practice for the existing pilots. I thought it was fairly well established that even in 1940 the Germans lost the Battle of Britain, in that over the period the number of British aircraft and pilots was increasing while the number of German aircraft and pilots was decreasing. By D-day the allies had close to air superiority of most of western Europe, and could run daylight bombing raids right into Germany. They weren’t “safe”, the German airforce were still fighting to the end. But the allied aviation was clearly way ahead of the germans at this point.

    Reply
  123. Depends on what you mean by German Aviation””.The German air force was not just a list of technical specifications. It needed good planes”” true but it also needed enough of them and enough fuel to fly them and good quality fuel. It needed enough pilots. It needed trained pilots which means fuel for the flight schools and fuel for practice for the existing pilots.I thought it was fairly well established that even in 1940 the Germans lost the Battle of Britain in that over the period the number of British aircraft and pilots was increasing while the number of German aircraft and pilots was decreasing. By D-day the allies had close to air superiority of most of western Europe”” and could run daylight bombing raids right into Germany. They weren’t “”””safe”””””””” the German airforce were still fighting to the end. But the allied aviation was clearly way ahead of the germans at this point.”””

    Reply
  124. Yeah, I heard they were slowing down too.

    I don’t really think the day will come when we are asking for Chinese expertise, unless they demonstrate some really nice Gen4 technology and we decide to adopt it. We should certainly cozy up to them with regards to their pebble bed reactors and MSR experiments. They volunteered to put these facilities in their backyard – so we should ask for invitations. Same with the BN fast reactors in Russia.

    So, nuclear power plants are not jet engines; they are rather simple. You could obtain commercial licenses for top notch software to manage the fuel cycle for about $1M (Studsvik) or use government codes (PARCS) for a fraction of that cost. There are probably only 100 piece parts in a BWR, if you neglect fasteners, and the materials are COTS…. You can’t really lose an advantage in this technology – it has become public domain.

    Reply
  125. Italy is not an ally of the US. It is a vassal state. A satrapy. Always has been since we invaded and conquered it back in the 40s.

    Reply
  126. Italy is not an ally of the US.It is a vassal state. A satrapy.Always has been since we invaded and conquered it back in the 40s.

    Reply
  127. I’m a huge fan of nuclear, especially MSRs. But the Chinese forging full speed ahead with reactors is scary – their track record for precise and complex engineering is not great. Their solar and wind investments are idiotic. The safest is good old CCGT (especially with the newer Japanese turbines) if they can ever wean themselves off coal.

    Reply
  128. Rosatom, yes. The French have gotten pretty frustrated, Taishan finally went on-line, and the CNNC still hasn’t signed up for old-Areva to move on with next project, though Framatom is deliving some sub-systems. But yeah, I hear ya. new reactors in the US? zero . China? Lots planned but I can’t find the latest official approvals from CNNC. Do you know if they have given the green light to any this year?

    Reply
  129. Heather takes carbon and hydrogen out of sea water, but it is much cheaper to spit water with heat from combustible waste. Iodine and sulfur oxide as catalysts provide 150C for H2 and 850C for an oxygen atom carbon dioxide from combustion. Of course, it is possible to extract heat from modern nuclear and carbon dioxide from the nearest coal power plants.

    Reply
  130. To think that we (USA) are in a position of strength vs. the Chinese, who manufacture literally everything we buy, because we could “pull manufacturing from China” is laughable. China is in the position of strength.

    Reply
  131. They have plenty of Russian and French support for their nuclear program. With 40 GW of installed capacity, they are most definitely competent on their own – methinks. Honestly, China and Russia, and the Koreans are leaving US behind in nuclear energy. To think otherwise is not humble.

    Reply
  132. Still need CO and H2 feedstock for ‘synthetic’ fuel; don’t see how we’re going to get $40/bbl from that. What is the cheapest H2 source? Natural gas.

    Since the EPR and AP-1000 together have accumulated only about one man-month of operational history and had woefully underestimated FOAK construction costs, we can’t say that they take less resources to build/operate compared to GenII. Some GenII were built for well under $1B. Cost savings for operations will come only by reducing security and functions like Emergency Planning and a dozen other departments mandated by regulation.

    Reply
  133. Well, as we speak nuclear is still only 4% of their total power supply. Building out that much capacity so quickly is not exactly a risk-free endeavor. Their track-record has so far been very poor. (e.g., AP1000)

    Reply
  134. Sure. Better if the engineers explain. NEI magazine “nuclear in china why the slowdown” August 10 2017. Cost overruns, poor design, not enough expertise, too fast too soon. The 2015 Tianjin explosion. The CNNSA (nuke safety administration) was bold enough to post a series of mishaps (“pushing wrong buttons”) which is pretty remarkable given China views their nuke energy program as top secret. “China’s nuclear emergency response [system] still has certain inadequacies in terms of technology, equipment, human resources, capacity and standards” according to the official Chinese State Council Information Office. If this is what they say in public, I wonder what is really going on?

    Reply
  135. Problem is that the west is not the US And Europe is starting to reconsider their ties with the US As an Italian, I d not see the open point to stick with an “ally” who only screwes you And I think that if the US pulls out from business with China their economy will be screwed much more as all iPhones are made in China now

    Reply
  136. Problem is that the west is not the US And Europe is starting to reconsider their ties with the US As an Italian I d not see the open point to stick with an ally”” who only screwes you And I think that if the US pulls out from business with China their economy will be screwed much more as all iPhones are made in China now”””

    Reply
  137. The US has the stronger Navy and could apply such a blockade against China. -> China has also many nuckes and ICBMs . China can start a nuclear war with the US

    Reply
  138. The US has the stronger Navy and could apply such a blockade against China.-> China has also many nuckes and ICBMs . China can start a nuclear war with the US

    Reply
  139. There is a problem with using a first strike weapon on the US. If you use one you need to kill the US. If you don’t your country will be the dead one. Look what happened to the Japanese and all they did was sink some ships. In other words, don’t start what you are not prepared to finish.

    Reply
  140. The far greater dependency for China is trade. If the west stopped all trade and pulled their manufacturing from China, their economy would collapse. And the military wouldn’t be far behind. China has a vested interest in being as warm and cozy as possible with America. Instead, they are making the same mistake Japan made in the 1930’s: Sabre rattling, setting up a ring of islands with offensive capabilities, intimating their neighbors, and implementing aggressive trade policies… It won’t take much more for the west to do an about-face and divest from the Chinese economy. After all, why should we fund the economy of a nation that appears to be preparing for war against us?

    Reply
  141. The far greater dependency for China is trade. If the west stopped all trade and pulled their manufacturing from China their economy would collapse. And the military wouldn’t be far behind. China has a vested interest in being as warm and cozy as possible with America. Instead they are making the same mistake Japan made in the 1930’s: Sabre rattling setting up a ring of islands with offensive capabilities intimating their neighbors and implementing aggressive trade policies… It won’t take much more for the west to do an about-face and divest from the Chinese economy. After all why should we fund the economy of a nation that appears to be preparing for war against us?

    Reply
  142. China had olmost non nuclear industry ten years aho, now they have 40 reactors in operation (both EPR and AP-1000) and 20 under construction. China may start construction of 32 more reactors before 2020.
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Modern GenIII+ demand 1/3 less resources to build and operate and builds for 50% longer lifetime than the GenII+ that out compete coal during the 1980 th. The potential with long series is much greater than solar and wind. Ad to that SMR with high enough temperature for producing og synthetic fuel ceaper than from oil for $40/ bbr.

    Reply
  143. Those can be bombed. Ever hear of long range cruise missiles? Esp from the Indians, who could use medium range bombers even. T That makes those pipelines even worse as far as concentrated targets. At least oil tankers can be more numerous and not in one place. And if the ME stops producing oil because the terminals (both shipping and pipeline) get bombed, all that pipeline across the Stans won’t amount to much but a lot of wasted steel. Russia is a different story. Most of its Far East oil production and terminals is actually controlled by western firms like ExxonMobil and Shell as those contracts were set up during the Yeltsin years and the US government put its foot down when Putin tried to seize those. And even if all that was redirected to China — it would barely scratch the surface of demand.

    Reply
  144. Those can be bombed. Ever hear of long range cruise missiles? Esp from the Indians who could use medium range bombers even. TThat makes those pipelines even worse as far as concentrated targets. At least oil tankers can be more numerous and not in one place. And if the ME stops producing oil because the terminals (both shipping and pipeline) get bombed all that pipeline across the Stans won’t amount to much but a lot of wasted steel. Russia is a different story. Most of its Far East oil production and terminals is actually controlled by western firms like ExxonMobil and Shell as those contracts were set up during the Yeltsin years and the US government put its foot down when Putin tried to seize those. And even if all that was redirected to China — it would barely scratch the surface of demand.

    Reply
  145. Germany…and even Japan…had superior weapons/tech. The Japanese Zero was better than anything the Americans fielded at the start of the war, at least. But they had severe fuel supply problems.

    Reply
  146. Germany…and even Japan…had superior weapons/tech. The Japanese Zero was better than anything the Americans fielded at the start of the war at least.But they had severe fuel supply problems.

    Reply
  147. China and India needs to reduce their consumption of oil. They both need to reduce car and truck usage and to use cars and trucks with higher mpg. They can reduce car usage by focusing on mass transportation. They can reduce truck usage by increasing cargo rail. They can improve mpg by going high mpg engines, hybrid and EV. If they were aggressive they could half their oil usage in 20 years.

    Reply
  148. China and India needs to reduce their consumption of oil. They both need to reduce car and truck usage and to use cars and trucks with higher mpg. They can reduce car usage by focusing on mass transportation. They can reduce truck usage by increasing cargo rail. They can improve mpg by going high mpg engines hybrid and EV. If they were aggressive they could half their oil usage in 20 years.

    Reply
  149. China is a maritime dependent nation with a Brown Water Navy. If the Shias and the Sunis start going after each other’s oil platforms in the Persian Gulf, China will have to use it’s navy to go in and protect the straits of Hormuz and the platforms. They will have no other option.

    Reply
  150. Replace “Germany” with “Japan” and I think a fairer assessment. China will be foreign energy dependent for a long time coming. Their nuclear program is a disaster and without US support won’t go anywhere. Renewables are in places not connected to the grid and don’t provide base power anyway. Coal is now capped, but the energy deficit is being plugged with natgas and oil. I don’t think a war will help them secure energy sources, rather the opposite.

    Reply
  151. China imports 70% of its oil and India imports 87% of its oil. They mostly get the oil from the middle east which could easily be blocked with a naval blockade. The US has the stronger Navy and could apply such a blockade against China.” Or, India could block oil shipments to China from the PG. Japan could also, but not as easily as the Indians can do. The IO where the oil has to pass through is in both India’s back and front yard, so to speak. But makes China, India and most of the rest of Asia vulnerable is possible war breaking out between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Then things will get really, really bad. Great for the US of largest oil exporters A, tho.

    Reply
  152. China imports 70{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of its oil and India imports 87{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of its oil. They mostly get the oil from the middle east which could easily be blocked with a naval blockade. The US has the stronger Navy and could apply such a blockade against China.””Or”” India could block oil shipments to China from the PG. Japan could also but not as easily as the Indians can do. The IO where the oil has to pass through is in both India’s back and front yard so to speak.But makes China India and most of the rest of Asia vulnerable is possible war breaking out between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Then things will get really really bad. Great for the US of largest oil exporters A”” tho.”””

    Reply
  153. I think as far as oil is concerned circa 1930s/40s, comparing China to then Japan is more appropriate. We cut off oil shipments the Japan…and that led directly to Pearl Harbor.

    Reply
  154. I think as far as oil is concerned circa 1930s/40s comparing China to then Japan is more appropriate.We cut off oil shipments the Japan…and that led directly to Pearl Harbor.

    Reply
  155. WW2 Japan was way less powerful than China today so the comparison is irrelevant
    “Sorry, but doing business with a government aimed at killing the US off, is, in no way, worth it. ”
    -> how do you know since no one as powerful as CHina today as seen has been trying?
    “An alliance should never be a suicide pact, and if we are harming you, pull out. You need to take care of yourselves.”
    -> I need to agreeon this

    Reply
  156. Sorry, but doing business with a government aimed at killing the US off, is, in no way, worth it. Look for Mr. Wang’s articles on Next Big Future and inform yourself of the decision by the Party, to imitate WW2 Japan. Also, if you think that being connected to the US is a hazard for Italy, then by all means change things. An alliance should never be a suicide pact, and if we are harming you, pull out. You need to take care of yourselves.

    Reply
  157. Its amazing, Mr. Corleone, how history seems to be repeating itself. An isolated leadership, with apparently little experience with a strong leader, perhaps basing their opinions on deal with crooked globalist, who reassure that they can get rid of Donald, or contain him? Brian Wang has covered the PLA’s hypersonic missile development, over the years (first strike weapons!), and, in the last few weeks, the US response.

    Reply
  158. Heather Willauer make jet fuel from sea water and energy, same technique can be used with massproduced high temperature nuklear reaktors but cheapier. I guess that oil will lose it global power before 2030. If not, then the scientifically rejected carbon dioxide threat will fall. The climate war, neither is it about climate or the environment, just about power.

    Reply
  159. Depends on what you mean by “German Aviation”.

    The German air force was not just a list of technical specifications.

    It needed good planes, true, but it also needed enough of them, and enough fuel to fly them, and good quality fuel. It needed enough pilots. It needed trained pilots, which means fuel for the flight schools and fuel for practice for the existing pilots.

    I thought it was fairly well established that even in 1940 the Germans lost the Battle of Britain, in that over the period the number of British aircraft and pilots was increasing while the number of German aircraft and pilots was decreasing.

    By D-day the allies had close to air superiority of most of western Europe, and could run daylight bombing raids right into Germany. They weren’t “safe”, the German airforce were still fighting to the end. But the allied aviation was clearly way ahead of the germans at this point.

    Reply
  160. Problem is that the west is not the US
    And Europe is starting to reconsider their ties with the US
    As an Italian, I d not see the open point to stick with an “ally” who only screwes you
    And I think that if the US pulls out from business with China their economy will be screwed much more as all iPhones are made in China now

    Reply
  161. The far greater dependency for China is trade. If the west stopped all trade and pulled their manufacturing from China, their economy would collapse. And the military wouldn’t be far behind. China has a vested interest in being as warm and cozy as possible with America. Instead, they are making the same mistake Japan made in the 1930’s: Sabre rattling, setting up a ring of islands with offensive capabilities, intimating their neighbors, and implementing aggressive trade policies… It won’t take much more for the west to do an about-face and divest from the Chinese economy. After all, why should we fund the economy of a nation that appears to be preparing for war against us?

    Reply
  162. Those can be bombed. Ever hear of long range cruise missiles? Esp from the Indians, who could use medium range bombers even. T

    That makes those pipelines even worse as far as concentrated targets. At least oil tankers can be more numerous and not in one place.

    And if the ME stops producing oil because the terminals (both shipping and pipeline) get bombed, all that pipeline across the Stans won’t amount to much but a lot of wasted steel.

    Russia is a different story. Most of its Far East oil production and terminals is actually controlled by western firms like ExxonMobil and Shell as those contracts were set up during the Yeltsin years and the US government put its foot down when Putin tried to seize those. And even if all that was redirected to China — it would barely scratch the surface of demand.

    Reply
  163. Germany…and even Japan…had superior weapons/tech. The Japanese Zero was better than anything the Americans fielded at the start of the war, at least.

    But they had severe fuel supply problems.

    Reply
  164. China and India needs to reduce their consumption of oil. They both need to reduce car and truck usage and to use cars and trucks with higher mpg. They can reduce car usage by focusing on mass transportation. They can reduce truck usage by increasing cargo rail. They can improve mpg by going high mpg engines, hybrid and EV. If they were aggressive they could half their oil usage in 20 years.

    Reply
  165. “China imports 70% of its oil and India imports 87% of its oil. They mostly get the oil from the middle east which could easily be blocked with a naval blockade. The US has the stronger Navy and could apply such a blockade against China.”

    Or, India could block oil shipments to China from the PG. Japan could also, but not as easily as the Indians can do. The IO where the oil has to pass through is in both India’s back and front yard, so to speak.

    But makes China, India and most of the rest of Asia vulnerable is possible war breaking out between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Then things will get really, really bad. Great for the US of largest oil exporters A, tho.

    Reply

Leave a Comment