Connect with us

News

Xi’s climate goals boost China’s nuclear industry

Published

on

Xi’s climate goals boost China’s nuclear industry

At Karachi’s Paradise Point, on the coastline of Pakistan, China’s long-term ambition for a world-leading nuclear energy industry is coming into view.

For nearly half a century, power at the site — Pakistan’s first nuclear operation — was delivered by Canadian-designed reactors. But, last year, Pakistani nuclear officials gave their final approval for new Hualong-1 reactors, which represent the first exports of China National Nuclear Corporation’s third-generation power station technology.

By March, Xu Pengfei, chair of the China Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation, was able to tell CGTN, China’s state broadcaster, that the units were “operating successfully”, and had demonstrated a “collaborative effort at innovation”, with domestic suppliers providing more than 90 per cent of the equipment.

Nuclear power remains a growth industry in China. Over the past decade, the capacity of installed plants has more than doubled, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration and the International Atomic Energy Agency. As of April this year, China had 55 reactors with installed capacity of 53 gigawatts, up from fewer than 20GW in 2014.

At present, the US is still the world’s biggest user of nuclear power, with 94 operational reactors with an installed capacity of 96GW. However, China is building new reactors at a faster pace than any other country. It has 26 reactors under construction, with an installed capacity of about 30GW.

Advertisement

While Beijing’s original rationale for expanding nuclear power was energy security, the technology’s potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions has become increasingly important to policymakers, according to researcher Philip Andrews-Speed in an analysis for the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES).

A key moment came in September 2020, when Chinese leader Xi Jinping announced that the country’s carbon emissions would peak before 2030 and hit net zero by 2060.

Policymakers in Beijing believe nuclear power can help replace coal-fired plants, which are still the main source of China’s electricity despite a rapid growth in renewables. And they are on track to deliver: China’s policy is in line with International Energy Agency estimates that global nuclear power capacity will have to double by 2050 to hit net zero goals.

In recent months, nuclear power technology has also been heralded in China as a “new productive force” — part of Xi’s vision of long-term economic growth underpinned by increasingly advanced manufacturing industries.

Michal Meidan, head of China energy research at OIES, says that nuclear energy is “definitely part of the solution” for China’s decarbonisation plans, especially given the country has its own nuclear industry that could generate revenues and growth internationally.

Advertisement

But the rapid expansion of the nuclear industry in China has raised questions over resource security, safety, regulation, and export plans as geopolitical tensions rise. Meidan notes that Chinese attempts to export nuclear technology have “faced resistance”, mainly in Romania and the UK, amid a wider backlash against China in Europe and the US.

“Globally, nuclear is quite a divisive question,” Meidan says. “It clearly has environmental attributes that can help but safety, fuel reprocessing and uranium availability are concerns . . . It’s unclear how big a role nuclear will play in China’s energy transition.”

Last year, nuclear power accounted for about 5 per cent of total electricity generation in China but investment in construction of new plants reached $13.1bn — the highest in five years.

As more reactors swing into production, nuclear’s contribution to China’s electricity generation mix is expected to rise to about 10 per cent by 2035 and 18 per cent by 2060, according to the China Nuclear Energy Association.

$13.1bnInvestment in new nuclear power construction in China in 2023 — a five-year high

Advertisement

David Fishman, an analyst at The Lantau Group, a consultancy, says the pace of growth of nuclear power in China over recent years means that the country is probably at “maximum capacity for the industry”, with regulatory agencies and the supply chain at particular risk of strain.

“To staff all the plants, you need to have nuclear . . . and chemical engineering graduates . . . and then the equivalent number of people in Beijing, at the regulatory end, who are able to manage all the plants, who are able to do safety inspections, and checks and reviews,” he says.

Fishman also notes that China is reluctant to become reliant on the “vagaries of the international markets” for its long-term uranium supply. China has a policy of sourcing roughly one-third of its uranium domestically, one-third from Chinese companies’ holdings in foreign mines, and one-third from the international spot market.

“But the fact still remains that they don’t have a lot of domestic uranium, so that could be a concern at some point,” Fishman says.

Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, a think-tank, says a key domestic question is whether Beijing decides to expand its nuclear energy capacity from the eastern and southern coastline — where it is currently concentrated — into the country’s vast inland areas. Experts suggest that such plans could be included in the country’s 15th Five-Year Plan period, from 2026-2030.

Advertisement

Li, who previously led Greenpeace’s China climate change team in Beijing, says that, while public perception of nuclear power in China is “neutral”, in the early 2010s a debate on whether to expand the industry inland drew furious responses from the provinces concerned.

“Nuclear is certainly not as controversial as in some of the continental European countries, such as Germany, or in Japan,” Li observes. “Having said that, inland power plants will be very controversial, simply because, if an accident happens, it will have a very large-scale impact for downstream provinces.”

Still, China’s advances in nuclear technology, thanks to lavish state support, mean that — like the country’s solar, wind and electric vehicle industries — its nuclear power sector is also looking outward, to reshape global energy markets.

Although there is resistance to Chinese nuclear projects in many western countries, the Chinese-made reactors at Karachi’s Paradise Point are just the start of an export push.

Over the next decade, China has plans to build and finance reactors across Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, according to Lami Kim, director of the Asian Studies Program at the US Army War College. She says this strategy could have “significant implications”, as Beijing shapes global nuclear governance and shifts the balance of power away from the US.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

CAUGHT ON CAM: Massive sinkhole swallows part of soccer field

Published

on

CAUGHT ON CAM: Massive sinkhole swallows part of soccer field

TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — Surveillance video captured a massive sinkhole opening up in the middle of a soccer field in Illinois.

According to NBC affiliate KSDK, the sinkhole is roughly 100 feet wide and 30 feet deep.

The video shows a light pole being swallowed, along with some bleachers, where benched players would sit during their games. Thankfully, no one was seated there at that time.

“It looks like something out of a movie, right? It looks like a bomb went off,” the Director of Alton’s Parks and Recreation Department told KSDK.

KSDK said the cause is reportedly due to an underground mine.

Advertisement

The owners of the mine said the area is currently closed while inspectors conduct repairs.

Continue Reading

News

Toplines: June 2024 Times/Siena Poll of Registered Voters Nationwide

Published

on

Toplines: June 2024 Times/Siena Poll of Registered Voters Nationwide

How This Poll Was Conducted

Here are the key things to know about this Times/Siena poll:

• We spoke with 1,226 registered voters from June 20 to 25, 2024.

• Our polls are conducted by telephone, using live interviewers, in both English and Spanish. More than 90 percent of respondents were contacted on a cellphone for this poll.

• Voters are selected for the survey from a list of registered voters. The list contains information on the demographic characteristics of every registered voter, allowing us to make sure we reach the right number of voters of each party, race and region. For this poll, we placed nearly 150,000 calls to more than 100,000 voters.

Advertisement

• To further ensure that the results reflect the entire voting population, not just those willing to take a poll, we give more weight to respondents from demographic groups that are underrepresented among survey respondents, like people without a college degree. You can see more information about the characteristics of our respondents and the weighted sample at the bottom of the page, under “Composition of the Sample.”

• The poll’s margin of sampling error among registered voters is plus or minus three percentage points. In theory, this means that the results should reflect the views of the overall population most of the time, though many other challenges create additional sources of error. When computing the difference between two values — such as a candidate’s lead in a race — the margin of error is twice as large.

If you want to read more about how and why we conduct our polls, you can see answers to frequently asked questions and submit your own questions here.

Full Methodology

Advertisement

The New York Times/Siena College poll of 1,226 registered voters nationwide, including 991 who completed the full survey, was conducted in English and Spanish on cellular and landline telephones from June 20 to 25, 2024. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 3.2 percentage points for the likely electorate. Among those who completed the full survey, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 3.6 percentage points for the likely electorate.

Sample

The survey is a response rate-adjusted stratified sample of registered voters on the L2 voter file. The sample was selected by The New York Times in multiple steps to account for differential telephone coverage, nonresponse and significant variation in the productivity of telephone numbers by state.

First, records were selected by state. To adjust for noncoverage bias, the L2 voter file was stratified by statehouse district, party, race, gender, marital status, household size, turnout history, age and home ownership. The proportion of registrants with a telephone number and the mean expected response rate were calculated for each stratum. The mean expected response rate was based on a model of unit nonresponse in prior Times/Siena surveys. The initial selection weight was equal to the reciprocal of a stratum’s mean telephone coverage and modeled response rate. For respondents with multiple telephone numbers on the L2 file, the number with the highest modeled response rate was selected.

Second, state records were selected for the national sample. The number of records selected by state was based on a model of unit nonresponse in prior Times/Siena national surveys as a function of state, telephone number quality and other demographic and political characteristics. The state’s share of records was equal to the reciprocal of the mean response rate of the state’s records, divided by the national sum of the weights.

Advertisement

Fielding

The sample was stratified according to political party, race and region and fielded by the Siena College Research Institute, with additional field work by ReconMR, the Public Opinion Research Laboratory at the University of North Florida, the Institute of Policy and Opinion Research at Roanoke College, and the Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research at Winthrop University in South Carolina. Interviewers asked for the person named on the voter file and ended the interview if the intended respondent was not available. Overall, 91 percent of respondents were reached on a cellular telephone.

The instrument was translated into Spanish by ReconMR. Bilingual interviewers began the interview in English and were instructed to follow the lead of the respondent in determining whether to conduct the survey in English or Spanish. Monolingual Spanish-speaking respondents who were initially contacted by English-speaking interviewers were recontacted by Spanish-speaking interviewers. Overall, 13 percent of interviews among self-reported Hispanics were conducted in Spanish, including 17 percent of weighted interviews.

An interview was determined to be complete for the purposes of inclusion in the ballot test question if the respondent did not drop out of the survey by the end of the two self-reported variables used in weighting — age and education — and answered at least one of the age, education, race or presidential election ballot test questions.

Weighting — registered voters

Advertisement

The survey was weighted by The Times using the R survey package in multiple steps.

First, the sample was adjusted for unequal probability of selection by stratum.

Second, the sample was weighted to match voter file-based parameters for the characteristics of registered voters.

The following targets were used:

• Party (party registration if available, or else classification based on a model of vote choice in prior Times/Siena polls) by whether the respondent’s race is modeled as white or nonwhite (L2 model)

Advertisement

• Age (Self-reported age, or voter file age if the respondent refuses) by gender (L2)

• Race or ethnicity (L2 model)

• Education (four categories of self-reported education level, weighted to match NYT-based targets derived from Times/Siena polls, census data and the L2 voter file)

• White/non-white race by college or non-college educational attainment (L2 model of race weighted to match NYT-based targets for self-reported education)

• Marital status (L2 model)

Advertisement

• Home ownership (L2 model)

• National region (NYT classifications by state)

• Turnout history (NYT classifications based on L2 data)

• Method of voting in the 2020 elections (NYT classifications based on L2 data)

• Metropolitan status (2013 NCHS Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties)

Advertisement

• Census tract educational attainment

Finally, the sample of respondents who completed all questions in the survey was weighted identically, as well as to the result for the general election horse race question (including leaners) on the full sample.

Weighting — likely electorate

The survey was weighted by The Times using the R survey package in multiple steps.

First, the samples were adjusted for unequal probability of selection by stratum.

Advertisement

Second, the first-stage weight was adjusted to account for the probability that a registrant would vote in the 2024 election, based on a model of turnout in the 2020 election.

Third, the sample was weighted to match targets for the composition of the likely electorate. The targets for the composition of the likely electorate were derived by aggregating the individual-level turnout estimates described in the previous step for registrants on the L2 voter file. The categories used in weighting were the same as those previously mentioned for registered voters.

Fourth, the initial likely electorate weight was adjusted to incorporate self-reported intention to vote intention. The final probability that a registrant would vote in the 2024 election was four-fifths based on their ex ante modeled turnout score and one-fifth based on their self-reported intentions, based on prior Times/Siena polls, including a penalty to account for the tendency of survey respondents to turn out at higher rates than nonrespondents. The final likely electorate weight was equal to the modeled electorate rake weight, multiplied by the final turnout probability and divided by the ex ante modeled turnout probability.

Finally, the sample of respondents who completed all questions in the survey was weighted identically, as well as to the result for the general election horse race question (including leaners) on the full sample.

The margin of error accounts for the survey’s design effect, a measure of the loss of statistical power due to survey design and weighting. The design effect for the full sample is 1.21 for registered voters and 1.33 for the likely electorate. The design effect for the sample of completed interviews is 1.24 for registered voters and 1.33 for the likely electorate.

Advertisement

Historically, The Times/Siena Poll’s error at the 95th percentile has been plus or minus 5.1 percentage points in surveys taken over the final three weeks before an election. Real-world error includes sources of error beyond sampling error, such as nonresponse bias, coverage error, late shifts among undecided voters and error in estimating the composition of the electorate.

Continue Reading

News

US drives nascent rebound in global M&A

Published

on

US drives nascent rebound in global M&A

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Global merger and acquisition deals hit $1.5tn in the first half of 2024 as a surge in US takeovers and an uptick in megamergers offset a declining number of acquisitions.

The value of deals struck was 22 per cent higher than a year earlier, according to mid-year data compiled by the London Stock Exchange Group, driven by a 70 per cent rise in big deals worth more than $10bn.

But the total number of deals fell 25 per cent to a four-year low, with acquisitions worth $500mn or less — the smaller takeovers that make up the backbone of the deal market — falling 13 per cent by value.

Advertisement

“This year for M&A is much better than last year,” said Anu Aiyengar, global head of mergers and acquisitions at JPMorgan. “But that’s a low bar, because last year was a tough year.”

The tentative recovery comes after M&A activity slid to a 10-year low in 2023 as interest rates rose from the ultra-low levels that stoked a pandemic-era deals boom. But it remains fragile.

One senior European banker said: “There’s concerns about the consumer, there’s concerns about elections, rates haven’t come down as fast as people had hoped. All of that introduces more volatility.”

The US was an engine of activity in the first half of this year, with the value of deals up 43 per cent to $796bn, more than half the global total and the country’s largest share of the global market since 2019.

European dealmaking kept pace to rise 43 per cent by value, while the Asia-Pacific region declined 21 per cent.

Advertisement

Top deals that advanced in the second quarter included US oil and gas producer ConocoPhillips’s move to buy its smaller rival Marathon Oil for $22.5bn, the latest in a series of tie-ups in the Permian Basin sparked by ExxonMobil’s acquisition of rival Hess.

Meanwhile, the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company is nearing a €14.4bn agreement to take over the German chemicals group Covestro after boosting its proposed offer this month.

Deals in energy rose 27 per cent this year to $254bn, according to the report, the best sector behind technology.

Still, an uptick in big deals has not been enough to completely shake M&A from its post Covid-19 doldrums, with deal volumes in the three months to the end of June on track to stay below $1tn for the eighth consecutive quarter.

While middle-market deals continued at a slower pace, financial services proved a bright spot for transactions, with deal volumes in the sector up 60 per cent on the same period last year, bolstered by Capital One’s February agreement to acquire rival Discover Financial for $35.3bn.

Advertisement

Investment bankers and lawyers advising on deals said large companies had been increasingly willing to approach potential targets now the macroeconomic environment had begun to stabilise and as they grew impatient to pursue their long-term plans.

Not every approach has been successful — Australian miner BHP’s £39bn effort to take over Anglo American, for example, collapsed in May after a frenzied six-week pursuit.

“Large strategics have been waiting to forge ahead with a long-term plan,” said Ben Wilson, a senior managing director in Guggenheim Securities’ mergers and acquisitions group. “And there are fewer trapdoors.”

Private equity-backed M&A, a focus for dealmakers, rose 40 per cent in the first half of the year as buyout investors sit on a record number of assets that they must sell down to generate returns for their backers.

Larger banks such as Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley increased their share of the M&A advisory fee market to about 35 per cent of the global total, although this remained slightly less than boutique banks led by New York’s Centerview Partners.

Advertisement

Goldman Sachs was the top financial adviser on mergers in the first half of the year, leading in the US and Europe.

Continue Reading

Trending