power

We have a problem with cardboard recycling. In the United Kingdom they believe that the solution is to use it in a power plant

by

Every day, millions of cardboard boxes leave our homes heading to the blue container. They are the last link in an accelerated consumption cycle in online commerce. However, this material, so everyday that we don’t even look at it twice, could be on the verge of an unexpected second life: becoming fuel to generate electricity on a large scale. A residue that enters the energy map. A team of engineers from Nottingham University has shown for the first time that used cardboard can be used as an effective source of biomass in power plants. The investigation, published in the journal Biomass and Bioenergycompares cardboard with a common reference for industrial biomass: eucalyptus. The engineers didn’t just watch the cardboard burn. They crushed it, studied its shape, broke down its chemistry and analyzed how it reacted to heat and what type of carbon it left behind. They even developed their own method—based on thermogravimetric analysis—to measure exactly how much calcium carbonate each sample contains. This component, common in printed cardboard, gives rigidity to the material but also conditions its behavior when burning. Thanks to this procedure, they can predict which type of cardboard will work well in an industrial boiler and which could cause problems. The science behind cardboard that burns “better.” The study did not stop at theories. He tested the combustion of cardboard in two types of systems equivalent to those used in power plants: Drop Tube Furnace: Simulates the rapid combustion of pulverized biomass.Here, the researchers observed that cardboard particles develop chars (the carbonaceous remains that remain after the first combustion phase) highly reactive, with a predominance of fine and porous structures that favor a burnout accelerated. Muffle Furnace: Simulates fluidized bed or grate systems. Even with longer residence times, the paperboard maintained its excellent combustion profile. In addition, the size and shape of the particles were characterized through an analysis with more than one million particles per sample; The tendency of cardboard to form “spongy aggregates” during grinding was observed—a challenge for its industrial handling—and characteristics such as sphericity and aspect ratio were correlated, something that could improve future combustion models. As the academic study explains, this detailed analysis allows predicting combustion efficiency and designing industrial strategies to integrate cardboard into the fuel flow. The result was very favorable. Thanks to this experiment, the engineers managed to demonstrate that cardboard has less carbon (38%) than eucalyptus (46.7%) and its calorific value is also lower (15.9–16.5 MJ/kg versus 21 MJ/kg). However, its chars are finer, porous and reactive, which accelerates combustion; In addition, it contains much more ash (8.9–10.6%, compared to 0.6% for eucalyptus), a critical aspect for boilers. What remains to be resolved? Although the technical potential is evident, the study makes it clear that cardboard is not ready to enter the boilers of a power plant tomorrow. There are three fundamental challenges that must be addressed: Management and processing problems. When ground, cardboard does not behave like wood: it forms spongy lumps of very low density that make internal transport difficult, complicate the continuous feeding of boilers and can increase the risk of blockages and accumulations. The study warns that it will be essential to adapt the grinding and feeding systems to guarantee a stable and safe flow. The behavior of calcium. Cardboard contains very high levels of CaCO₃, especially when printed. This calcium can behave in different ways depending on the temperature and type of boiler. In certain cases it raises the fusion temperature of the ashes – which is positive -; In others it can favor the formation of slag or alter the quality of the fuel. The study recommends analyzing the behavior of cardboard according to the type of plant, because not all technologies tolerate these variations in the same way. Large-scale industrial validation. Laboratory tests are promising, but the decisive step is missing: testing the cardboard in real operating conditions. According to the researchers, the industry will have to carry out tests on different technologies in boilers, evaluate emissions, study the accumulation and composition of ash and check their compatibility with existing biomass mixtures. Only then can it be determined whether the cardboard can be safely and stably integrated into the mix of biomass. An everyday material with an unexpected future. Cardboard protects pizzas, televisions, books and appliances. We recycle it without thinking too much about it. But this research from Nottingham suggests that this everyday waste could become another piece of the energy transition, helping to diversify fuels and take advantage of an abundant and local resource. Today we see it as garbage. Tomorrow it could help produce electricity. The spark has already been lit: now we need to know if the industry wants – and can – convert it into real energy. Image | Unsplash and Geograph Xataka | Selling smoke is now a business in Soria: it purifies it and sells it as CO2 to make soft drinks

In 2011 Japan closed the largest nuclear power plant on the planet. Now he has decided to reopen it in the midst of the energy debate

by

The nuclear debate, which Japan thought closed, returns to the scene. The authorization of the governor of Niigata to reactivate Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, the largest atomic plant in the world, has set off alarms: citizen distrust, the shadow of Fukushima and doubts about whether TEPCO is the right company to lead the country’s new energy stage are emerging. A new nuclear revival? The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, managed by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), has not produced a single kilowatt since 2012. The closure was a direct consequence of the 2011 tsunami and the three meltdowns from Fukushima Daiichia blow that left reactors with similar designs under suspicion. That technical coincidence was enough to keep its seven reactors on hold for more than ten years, despite the fact that the plant was essential for the electricity supply of northeastern Japan. According to Japan TimesHideyo Hanazumi has authorized a step-by-step reactivation that will start with reactor 6—one of the most recent and powerful—and that, later, will also include reactor 7. Altogether, the complex exceeds 8,000 MW of capacity, a figure that not only imposes: it maintains it as the largest nuclear facility on the planet. A significant change for the Japanese country. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa has gone from a technical project to a strategic move. As reported by the Financial TimesTokyo trusts that its reactivation will contribute to lowering the electricity bill and ensuring energy sources with fewer emissions, at a time complicated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the fall of the yen, which makes fossil fuel imports more expensive. Japan, which before Fukushima generated almost 30% of its electricity with atomic plants, fell to practically zero after the disaster. Since then 14 reactors have reopened and others await local or regulatory approvals. The government aims for nuclear energy to once again represent 20% of the mix in 2040. In addition, TEPCO would improve its annual accounts by around 100 billion yen thanks to the restart, according to Japan Forwardat a time when it continues to face enormous costs for the dismantling of Fukushima Daiichi. The reactivation process. The restart will begin with unit 6, which already has fuel loaded and will begin commercial operations before March of next year. To move forward, TEPCO must respond to the Government’s demands, which include updating all security systems and improving emergency evacuation plans. The process has not been easy. As detailed by Japan Timesthe plant passed safety reviews in 2017, but then suffered a veto from the Nuclear Regulatory Authority due to deficiencies in anti-terrorist measures, lifted in 2023. In addition, TEPCO had to incorporate biometric controls and correct security flaws after new internal incidents. Is there controversy? Yes, and a lot. According to a survey cited by the BBC50% of Niigata residents support the revival, while 47% oppose it. However, almost 70% express their concern because the person operating the plant is the same company that caused the accident. From Japan Times He adds that the rejection intensifies in some of the towns located within 30 kilometers of the plant, where the majority fear a new disaster or distrust the company. Another source of discomfort, also pointed out by this medium, is that the electricity generated is not used in Niigata, but in the Tokyo region. The political dimension is equally tense. Hanazumi, aware of the sensitivity of her decision, has announced that he will submit his continuity as governor to the vote of the prefectural assembly, the only body that can remove him. But there is something else at play. The reopening of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is seen as a pillar to ensure the country’s energy security and avoid possible power outages in Tokyo. It would also allow reducing electricity rates that have increased notably since 2011. At the same time, Japan is not only restarting reactors: it is also is planning the construction of new plants with fourth generation reactors, which would mark a new chapter in the country’s energy policy. More than a return to the atom. The country that one day vowed not to depend on atomic energy again has ended up returning to it, driven by necessity, geopolitics and the urgency to decarbonize. It remains to be seen if this decision will also ignite the confidence of a citizenry that still carries the memory of Fukushima or if, on the contrary, the return to the atom will deepen a division that has been open for more than a decade. Although the governor’s approval is the decisive step, there are still procedures: the prefectural assembly must debate and vote on the decision in December, and the Japanese nuclear regulator must complete the formal procedures for reactivation. Image | IAEA Imagebank Xataka | In 2011, Japan promised itself not to bet on nuclear energy again. Until he met reality

Reopening nuclear power plants sounds very spectacular, but Google has a plan B in case it’s not enough: solar energy

by

Data centers for are insatiable monsters those who are responsible for them must feed. OpenAI, Meta, Microsoft, xAI, Anthropic and Google are burning money riding colossal data centers for training and management of artificial intelligence. But these installations are not expensive to set up: they are also expensive to maintain. They require a considerable amount of energy to functionand Google has just received a ‘shot’ of renewables. All thanks to a direct connection to the largest system in the United States. Renewables to power AI. Google and TotalEnergies have just signed a agreement of energy purchases for 15 years. The contract stipulates that the energy company will deliver 1.5 TWh of electricity from its Montpelier solar plant, in Ohio, to Google. The plant is still under construction and they estimate that it will have a capacity of 49 MW, but the most important thing is that it will be connected directly to the electricity system. PJM. It is the largest network operator in the United States. It covers 13 states and data centers are representing a relevant portion of the operator’s pie: in its last annual auction, the load of these facilities PJM capacity sale triggered at 7.3 billion dollars, 82% more. Astronomical needs. In the statement from TotalEnergies, the company that this agreement illustrates its ability to meet the growing energy demands of the major technology companies. The problem is that it is not enough. If we focus on Google, the consumption of its data centers was 30.8 million megawatt hours of electricity. The company has been focused on AI for years, but the recent ‘boom’ has made it double what its centers consumed in 2020 (14.4 million MWh). Currently, data centers are estimated to account for 95.8% of Google’s total electricity budget. But it’s not just Google: the International Energy Agency esteem that global data centers consumed 415 TWh last year, representing approximately 1.5% of global electricity consumption. It seems little put in percentage, but Spain consumed in 2024 231,808 GWh, or 231 TWh, in 2024. The data centers of a handful of companies alone consumed twice as much as an entire country. And the estimate is that this data center consumption will double by 2030, reaching 945 TWh. Renewables are not enough. Now, although renewables are a support for the total energy required by data centerssolar and wind power have two limitations: intermittency and variability. Generation depends on weather conditions and time of day, meaning it fluctuates dramatically even throughout the same day. This instability clashes head-on with the high reliability and availability requirements of data centers. These are installations that must operate continuously and cannot assume cuts or Unforeseeable drops in supplysince AI or cloud storage would suffer the consequences. These renewables require backup batteries, but it is complicated and expensive to have such a large number of batteries just to power data centers. Pulling the gas and looking at the nuclear. That’s where other sources come into play. On the one hand, nuclear. In October 2024, Google signed the world’s first corporate agreement to acquire nuclear energy from SMR reactors. The first will come into operation in 230 and it is expected that, together, they will be able to satisfy the technology company with 500 MW of capacity by 2035. On the other hand, natural gas. In October of this year, the Broadwing Energy Center project began, a new natural gas power plant that will have a capacity of 400 MW and is scheduled to come into play at the end of 2029. Decarbonization and pressure. And the big question is… doesn’t the use of gas for AI clash with the technology companies’ objectives of achieving decarbonization percentages for both 2030 and 2050? We have already seen that oil companies have been getting off the renewables bandwagon because they have seen that fossil fuels are still relevant in the technology industry, but in the case of Google, they rely on the fact that projects like the Broadwing Energy Center They will have CCS systems. This means that it will have carbon capture system that will be able to permanently “sequester” 90% of the emissions. It means burying the problem, literally, since the CO₂ will be stored a mile underground. In 2020, before the AI ​​boom, the company established the goal of operating with carbon-free energy 24 hours a day, seven days a week by 2030. It will be interesting to see how they plan to offset these emissions thanks to renewables, but the IAE estimates that the demand for data centers will not stop growing in the short term and that adds another problem: a increased pressure on the electrical grid which is added as another element to manage. Because the big underlying problem is that the demand for energy is growing at a faster rate than the capacity to generate new electricity, and it is something that has an impact on companies’ bills, but also in homes. Images | Unsplash, Google Data Center In Xataka | China does not have a spending problem with AI. What it has is a huge income gap compared to its main rival

The largest nuclear power plant in Europe has been connected to diesel generators for a month. It’s as encouraging as it sounds.

by

Europe is once again walking a nuclear tightrope. After more than three years of war, the largest atomic plant on the continent —the Ukrainian Zaporizhia plant— has gone from being an industrial symbol to becoming at a point of friction capable of triggering an emergency of continental reach. In parallel, other plants in the country operate at reduced power after attacks on the electrical grid. The situation is so unstable that the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, recently traveled to Kaliningrad, Russia, for emergency talks with the head of Rosatom, Alexey Likhachev, according to the Anadolu agency. It is a gesture that reflects the extent to which the risk is real. An attack that left two centers at minimum. According to a statement from the IAEAa military attack during the night of November 7 damaged an electrical substation critical to nuclear security. This incident left the Khmelnitsky and Rivne plants disconnected from one of their two 750 kilovolt lines and forced the electricity operator to order a power reduction in several of its reactors. Ten days later, one of the lines was still out of service and three reactors continued to operate at limited power. The agency emphasizes that these substations are essential nodes of the network: they allow the voltage levels that feed the security and cooling systems to be transformed and maintained. Without them, plants cannot guarantee safe operation. One month depending on diesel generators. The situation in Zaporizhzhia is even more critical. According to an opinion column by Najmedin Meshkati, professor of engineering and international relations published in the Financial Timesthe plant spent a full month without outside power after its two main lines were cut. During that time it survived solely on diesel generators, a resource that the industry considers strictly temporary: they are designed to run for around 24 hours, not for weeks. Technicians were only able to repair the lines under the protection of localized ceasefires negotiated by the IAEA, according to NucNet. Even so, one of the two restored lines was disconnected again on November 14 due to the activation of a protection system. Grossi summed it up like this: “The electrical situation at the plant remains extremely fragile.” The condition for a shut down reactor to remain safe. Although Zaporizhzhia’s six reactors have been on cold shutdown for more than three years, the plant requires a constant three to four megawatts to maintain cooling pumps and other essential systems, according to Meshkati. The professor emphasizes that even huge emergency batteries require external electricity to stay charged. It is a vicious circle: without the electrical grid, batteries are used, but without external electricity, these batteries cannot be recharged and, without both, the cooling systems fail. And without cooling the risk of nuclear fuel melting or overheating increases. The University of Southern California professor warns that this scenario reproduces the conditions that transformed Fukushima into a global disaster: “What turned an earthquake into a catastrophe was the total failure of the electrical system.” And he adds that, unlike 2011 in Japan, this time the risk comes from deliberate human action. A network reduced to its minimum expression. Before the war, according to the Kyiv Independentthe Zaporizhia plant was connected through ten power lines. Today it only has one or two operations and has lost all connection ten times since the beginning of the invasion. The IAEA itself has described the situation power plant as “extremely precarious” and “clearly not sustainable” when it depends for long periods on diesel generators. Short and medium term risks. The notices in the last report on Ukraine by the IAEA point in the same direction: the main danger is not a Chernobyl-type explosion, but a prolonged cooling failure. This scenario could cause overheating of the reactors in cold shutdown, damage to the spent fuel pools and a possible localized or regional radioactive release, with the consequent need to create an exclusion zone in the heart of agricultural Europe. For its part, according to Meshkatiadds two other relevant elements. On the one hand, it points out that a serious accident will exceed the economic impact of Fukushima, estimated at about $500 billion. An incident of that magnitude would affect agriculture, transport, supply chains and the European insurance market. On the other hand, he maintains that if Russia manages to consolidate the precedent that an occupying army can take control of a nuclear power plant and connect it to its own network, the global nuclear security architecture would be seriously compromised. It would be a precedent without equivalent since the creation of international standards that regulate the civil use of atomic energy. Is there a meeting point? The IAEA has acted as an intermediary between Moscow and kyiv on multiple occasions. According to the Anadolu agencyGrossi traveled to Kaliningrad to meet with Likhachev, director of Rosatom, in order to directly discuss the situation in Zaporizhzhia and the minimum conditions to guarantee nuclear safety. At the same time, the agency is trying to technically shore up the Ukrainian electrical system. According to their own statementshas so far coordinated 174 deliveries of essential equipment – ​​switches, electrical cabinets, radiation monitoring stations, vehicles and computer equipment – ​​worth more than 20.5 million euros, intended to sustain nuclear security in Ukraine during the war. Nuclear security supported by fragile cables Europe breathes thanks to a handful of cables repaired under fire and diesel generators that have already proven to be well beyond their limits. As the Financial Times explainsthe continent’s security depends on electricity continuing to arrive and on the parties respecting the fragile ceasefires needed to repair lines when they go down. Grossi summed it up with a mix of relief and alarm after the restoration of one of the lines: “It is a good day for nuclear security, although the situation remains highly precarious.” And the precarious thing, in this case, is that a new attack, a mechanical failure or a downed line is enough to bring … Read more

A study analyzed the power of LED car headlights. The conclusion is what all drivers already know

by

I hate traveling at night, almost as much as drive in rain. It had been a while since I went to a national one, but a few days ago I had to do it and what had to happen happened: I was dazzled on more than one occasion. Car headlights have evolved tremendously in a short time and LEDs have prevailed in new vehicles. The problem is that every time there are more signs that we have gone too far with its evolution. And a new report puts a percentage on how dangerous they can be if they are not properly calibrated… or if the car that uses them is an SUV. In short. Whether because you have a new car or because you update the headlights of a car with a few years behind it, they are one of the elements that are most appreciated on the journeys. They see you better, you see better and it is one of the most important points in terms of safety behind the wheel. If the height is correct and they are well calibrated, they are a pleasure, but it can also happen that this is not the case and they dazzle or dazzle you. There, security goes to hell for a few seconds. The British Department for Transport has published the results of a study about glare caused by LED lights. Your conclusion? They represent a road safety problem, altering the habits of drivers in the United Kingdom. We could extrapolate it perfectly. Basically, between October 2024 and early 2025, they combined objective measurements in real conditions with surveys of 1,850 drivers. The results They are devastating: 97% of them affirm that they are frequently distracted, and 96% that glare from headlights is a road safety problem. Analysis. On the one hand, we have those statements from drivers, who were asked about the frequency with which they felt distracted due to glare from the headlights of vehicles traveling in the opposite direction. On the other hand, the objective analysis. To do this, the DfT used luminance cameras and mixed the data using a machine learning algorithm to identify the variables that come into play at high glare levels. They discovered that there was a strong correlation between higher luminance levels and reports of glare in some test vehicles (logical, on the other hand). Also that road factors influence, such as circular upwards or curves to the righttimes when drivers’ eyes are most exposed to the beam of light from the headlights. In the end, these are things that a study does not have to confirm if you have ever driven at night, but what is interesting about the study is the consequences and the “culprits.” Impact. For example, more than half of the respondents have affirmed that this discomfort due to glare has generated anxiety when driving at certain hours, which is why they have reduced night driving or have abandoned it altogether. And more than 20% point out that they would like to take the car less at night because of this, but they have no other option. According to statistics and beyond the indirect impact, they estimate that glare has bound about 290 accidents annually. and the effects They depend on age: a 50-year-old person takes nine seconds to recover from glare, while a 16-year-old takes just one second, which applies another risk factor on the road to older drivers. SUV. Beyond this, they have also found that larger vehicles, such as SUVs, are the most associated with glare in surveys. This is logical: they are taller, their headlights are more aligned with the eyes of drivers traveling in the opposite direction (especially in lower cars) and it seems that all new cars are SUVsso they are the ones with the most up-to-date lights. The problem of retrofit. This term in English refers to the modification of an existing component. In short: updating with new parts and superior technologies, such as changing the brakes for better ones, installing a new infotainment system or change the original halogen headlights for LED ones. You can buy new ‘bulbs’ even on Amazon and many are approved, but there are two problems: those that are not well regulated and those that are installed illegally. The British Administration has identified that illegal conversion is a problem, since changing halogen bulbs for LED means that those housings designed for halogen do not work the same with the new LED headlights, causing dangerous glare. British ITV has intensified its analysis of the sale of these kits, with heavy fines for violators. Not simple solutions. They estimate that around 800,000 vehicles fail their annual inspection due to headlight alignment problems, but although these are UK numbers, this is a global problem (in Spain22% of serious failures have to do with the lights) which implies that, perhaps, we have gone too far with the power of our cars’ headlights. The solution is not clear. The report recommends periodic glare checks and rethinking luminance measurements in modern headlights, but this will have to be studied. In the end, it is something that we all suffer at one time or another although, as they point Our colleagues at MotorPasión, for motorcyclists there is another added problem: reflections on the visor itself. Image | Alexander Jawfox In Xataka | The “made in China” business of the DGT’s V-16 beacons: homologating the same product 24 times and selling it under different brands

the 15% that shows who has the power

by

Apple has closed a deal with Tencent to charge a 15% commission on purchases within WeChat mini-games, half of what it usually charges, according to Bloomberg. After more than a year of negotiations, Apple accepts conditions that it would never have admitted in the West. Why is it important. WeChat It is not just another app: it is China’s unofficial operating system, with 1.41 billion monthly users. If Apple had blocked features or put too much pressure on Tencent, it risked a backlash that could have severely damaged its position in its third-largest market. Tencent I knew it. Apple too. 15% is the price the company pays to keep the peace in a market where it does not dictate the rules. The money trail. WeChat mini-games generated 32.3 billion yuan ($4.5 billion) in social media revenue in the last quarter alone for Tencent. Until now, Apple did not see a cent of that pie because developers avoided its payment system. With 15% on that basis, Apple could earn about $675 million annually if current rates are maintained. It seems like a lot, but it’s pocket change: Apple had a turnover of $383 billion last year. This deal doesn’t move the financial needle. Between the lines. The most striking thing is not how much Apple earns, but how much it has had to give up. In its global App Store, Apple takes 30% from most developers as a non-negotiable toll. In China, Tencent has forced you to accept half. The arithmetic speaks for itself: Apple has given up 50% of its potential revenue before even starting to charge. That is not “a trade agreement.” It is a recognition of who has the real bargaining power. Yes, but. Ultimately, for Apple, something is better than nothing. For years it has watched one of China’s fastest-growing digital entertainment segments develop entirely outside its payments ecosystem. The agreement opens a tap of income that did not exist before, even if it is a small tap. And it sets a worrying precedent: if the most powerful player in China gets a 50% discount, what will stop others from demanding the same in other markets? It will be a matter of negotiating strength. Not everyone has a market of 1.4 billion consumers. The contrast. In Europe and the United States, Apple has had to give ground due to regulatory pressure: antitrust lawsuits, digital market laws either court battles with Epic Games. In China, it has given way due to pure market reality. He has not needed a regulator to force him to lower the commission. It was enough for Tencent to sit down to negotiate knowing that it manages the digital infrastructure without which Apple cannot operate effectively in the country. The big question. Is this 15% the new standard for platforms with sufficient negotiating muscle, or can Apple manage to maintain it as a Chinese exception? What is clear is that the era of the universal 30% commission is over, replaced by a fragmented reality where whoever has the users dictates the conditions. It is another symptom of end of globalization as we knew it. In Xataka | Tim Cook promised them very happy expanding Apple thanks to China. The reality is that China has ended up conquering Apple Featured image | zhang kaiyv, Amanz

The Fujian is officially China’s largest power catapult. Beijing already has a button to challenge the US Navy

by

It has been almost two years since China ended its long-awaited Fujian aircraft carrierits largest warship with cutting-edge technology for the nation. From then until now it has been going through different scenarios of tests and tests that will confirm reliability of what should be the spearhead for Beijing to compete in the same league as the United States. That day has already arrived. The naval power of the 21st century. China has made official the entry into service of Fujian, its first aircraft carrier with electromagnetic catapultsa milestone that marks a qualitative leap in the country’s naval ambition and in their direct rivalry with the United States. In a ceremony held in the port of Sanya, on the island of Hainan, President Xi Jinping performed the symbolic gesture of pressing the launch button from the ship’s control bubble, in an act that state propaganda presented as the beginning of a new era for the People’s Liberation Army Navy. Projection and vulnerability. With 80,000 tons displacement, 300 meters in length and capacity to operate nearly 60 aircraft, the Fujian becomes the jewel of the Chinese fleet, the third in service after from Liaoning and the Shandong. Its distinctive feature is the electromagnetic catapultsan aircraft launch system similar to the American EMALS that only equips one other ship in the world: the USS Gerald R. Ford. China has thus jumped directly from aircraft carriers with a “ski jump” ramp to a generation of electromagnetic propulsion directed personally, according to Beijing, by Xi. This technical advance has clear strategic implications: improves the rate of departures, reduces wear and tear on aircraft and allows the operation of drones or lighter devices, opening the door to a more flexible and modern on-board aviation. Fujian The jump and the dimension. The Fujian represents more than just a technical improvement: it is the first completely designed and built in Chinafree of the Soviet legacy that conditioned the previous ones. The Liaoning was originally a ukrainian helmet unfinished work of the eighties and the Shandong su national derivativeboth with STOBAR systems short takeoff. With Fujian, China abandons that past and exhibits its technological maturity, especially in a context of industrial rivalry with the United States, whose own EMALS program has faced years of failures and cost overruns. In contrast to the Gerald R. Ford problemsXi’s speech and the staging of the ceremony convey a message of effectiveness and national pride: that of a power capable of manufacturing its own cutting-edge ships while the adversary hesitates. The choice of the port of Hainan was also not accidental. from there, China control access to the South Sea and projects its influence towards the western Pacific and the Taiwan Strait. On that board, the Fujian is not just a ship, but a political statement about Beijing’s ability to contest global maritime dominance. Fujian Target of the future. However, the relevance of these steel colossi coexists with a paradox. While the great powers continue to invest billions in building them, the conflict in Ukraine has shown that he size no longer guarantees invulnerability. With low-cost naval drones, Ukraine has managed to disable much of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, inflicting a “functional defeat” without possessing a single aircraft carrier. The contrast is eloquent: asymmetric warfare reduces the effectiveness of the most expensive conventional weapons, but not their strategic value. In the case of China and the United States, aircraft carriers maintain their role as projection and deterrence instrumentsuseful for both combat operations and coercive diplomacy. Make fear. Washington continues to use them as pressure tool geopolitics: Donald Trump himself ordered the deployment of the Gerald R. Ford against Venezuela as a symbolic warning to the Nicolás Maduro regime. The scene, with an aircraft carrier escorted by four destroyers and armed with 70 aircraft, illustrates the extent to which these ships continue to be armed ambassadors of the superpowers, beyond their debatable military profitability. Global deterrence. Modern navies are aware that aircraft carriers are both a symbol like a target. During the Cold War, it was estimated that twelve conventional missiles to sink a super aircraft carrier. In 2005, the experimental sinking of the USS America required four weeks of sustained attacks, confirming its structural resilience, but also its exposure. In a scenario saturated with hypersonic missiles, swarms of drones and long-range anti-ship systems, its survival in real combat is increasingly uncertain. However, no other platform offers the combination of mobility, air capacity and logistical autonomy that an aircraft carrier provides. That is why China, despite investing in missiles to repel a US fleet off its coast, considers these ships essential for its own global ambitions. As pointed out analyst Nick Childsfrom the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Beijing understands them as an indispensable tool to project influence and support an eventual operation on Taiwan. Geopolitics of steel. we have been counting: the rise of Fujian is part of a broader strategy of naval expansion that has turned Chinese shipyards into the most productive on the planet. The country’s surface and submarine fleet is growing at a pace the United States can no longer match, and each new vessel reinforces the narrative of industrial self-sufficiency that Xi Jinping presents as an emblem. of the “national renaissance”. Facing eleven US aircraft carriers (ten nuclear and one conventionally powered), China has threebut with plans to build at least a nuclear one, the future Type 004which could directly rival the Fords of the US Navy. Unlike Russia, whose only aircraft carrier, the aging Admiral Kuznetsovhas been out of service for years and is headed for scrapping, China and the United States are today the only powers capable to sustain fleets with great oceanic projection. Europe, for its part, maintains a symbolic presence: the United Kingdom uses its aircraft carriers Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales on diplomatic or training missions, while France prepares its new future-generation nuclear aircraft carrier. Century of the seas and fragility. If you like, Fujian also symbolizes the meeting point … Read more

there is no power for so many chips

by

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella recently participated in an interview and in it Nadella explained that the real problem that the AI ​​segment has is not that there is excessive production of chips, but that we do not have enough energy to power all of them. It is confirmation of something that we have been seeing coming for a long time. Too many chips for so little power. Both Nadella and Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, participated in the interview. During it, the Microsoft CEO explained that “the biggest problem we have now is not excess computing capacity, but energy. It’s something like the ability to build (data centers) close enough to energy sources.” Chips in the drawer. Nadella went on to highlight that “if you can’t do something like that (supply enough power), you’re going to have a bunch of chips sitting around in inventory that you can’t plug in. In fact, that’s my problem right now: It’s not that I don’t have a sufficient supply of chips: it’s actually the fact that I don’t have places to plug them in.” A problem that was seen coming. Microsoft, like other companies that have opted for this segment, have been trying to prepare for this energy demand for some time. Two years ago, in autumn 2023, they were already looking for experts to lead its nuclear program. The objective: bet on the new SMR reactors which could be a good solution to power future data centers. Google was clear about exactly the same thing a year later, and reached an agreement with Kairos Power to build seven of those reactors from now to 2030. I stew it, I eat it. Large technology companies that are dedicating billions of dollars to creating new data centers in the US have discovered that the current electrical grid may be insufficient for their needs. Their solution is to build their own plantssomething they hope can balance the demand and consumption imposed by these gigantic computing factories in which tens of thousands of AI accelerator GPUs work to serve current (and future) users of AI functions. Growing needs. A report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that in 2022 between 240 and 340 TWh of energy will be used for data centers (excluding cryptocurrencies). This represents an increase of between 20 and 70% compared to 2015 consumption. Already in April 2024, that same organization warned that several countries will multiply this consumption significantly. Triple energy? ARM CEO Rene Haas then pointed out that energy needs would triplebut he probably couldn’t know how events would develop. Since then, AI companies have announced mammoth projects —with Stargate at the helm—and they will dedicate huge amounts of money in an uncertain bet: that AI will be the great revolution that will drive our daily lives. In Xataka | NVIDIA and OpenAI have just made a masterstroke. One that strengthens them and weakens everyone else

It’s just what the military power wanted

by

We are experiencing a very well-funded nuclear renaissance thanks to the small modular reactors (SMR). The recent agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom to build 20 of these mini-reactors is just the tip of the iceberg. Companies like Amazon, Google and Microsoft They have bet on them. They are said to be faster to build, more flexible, cheaper, and vital to decarbonizing the grid. But the numbers don’t quite add up. There is a cat trapped. As researchers from the University of Sussex point out in an analysis for The ConversationSMRs are not only “the most expensive source per kilowatt of electricity generated” when compared to natural gas, traditional nuclear and, above all, renewables. Many designs have not yet left Power Point. So, if they are not the best or the cheapest option, if the majority of designs have not been commercially built anywhere in the world, why this political and financial boom? The answer has little to do with the electricity bill and a lot to do with military power. Subsidies. The markets already know all this: they support SMRs because they are a way to take advantage of billions of dollars in government subsidies. The factor that is ignored in almost all energy debates is the military’s dependence on the civilian nuclear industry. Maintaining a nuclear weapons program or a nuclear-powered submarine armada requires constant access to reactor technologies, specific materials and, most importantly, highly qualified personnel. Without a civilian nuclear industry, supporting this military capability becomes astronomically more expensive. Submarines. The United States operates 66 nuclear submarines; the UK has nine. These vessels require a robust national and nuclear industrial base. This is where a company like the British Rolls-Royce becomes the key player: it already builds the reactors for British submarines and is ready to build the new civil SMRs. Rolls-Royce he openly admitted it in 2017: a civilian SMR program would “free the Ministry of Defense from the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability.” With a strong industry, military costs are “masked” under civilian programs. Thus, the money to maintain the submarine fleet does not come entirely from defense budgets, but from energy budgets, paid for by taxpayers and consumers through higher electricity bills. A global pattern. In the United States, the Pentagon sees mini nuclear reactors as an essential part of its future energy strategy on the battlefieldas well as space infrastructure and the development of new high-energy weapons, such as anti-drone and anti-missile laser systems. But the military push of the SMR is not exclusive to the Anglo-Saxon world. It is the modus operandi of all nuclear powers. In China and Russia they do not even hide the inseparable links between its civil and military programs. And in France, President Emmanuel Macron put it bluntly: “without civil nuclear energy, there is no military nuclear energy; without military nuclear energy, there is no civil nuclear energy.” And the renewable ones? The irony of this matter is a letter that has just been published Guardian signed by retired senior European military commanders. It is a letter in favor of investment in renewable energies coming out of the Defense budgets. These former NATO leaders argue that the climate crisis is a threat to national security. They maintain that investing in solar and wind energy would make us more resistant to threats from aggressor countries like Russia. “We must end our dependence on foreign oil and gas,” they write. “A dependence on fossil fuels makes our countries less safe.” Energy sovereignty, after all, is a matter of national security. Image | Rolls-Royce In Xataka | The reason why China is winning the nuclear race: it takes half as long to build and costs six times less

that building nuclear power plants becomes increasingly cheaper

by

While Western countries debated for or against nuclear energy, with the construction of new plants weighed down by decades of delays and cost overruns, China has not only continued building: He has done it against the trend of the sector. For the first time in more than 50 years, a country has made building nuclear reactors increasingly cheaper, faster and scalable. The difference is overwhelming. The only two reactors built in the United States this century (at the Vogtle plant in Georgia) took 11 years to complete and cost a whopping $35 billion, equivalent to about $15 per watt of capacity. According to a analysis published in NatureChina is building its new nuclear power plants for just $2 a watt. It is not an anomaly, but a trend. Construction costs in the United States have increased tenfold since the 1960s, and in France they have almost doubled. In China they halved during the 2000s and have remained stable since then. The big question is how they have achieved it, and whether the rest of the world can imitate them. The Chinese nuclear recipe. Building a nuclear power plant remains one of the most complex engineering projects on the planet. If China has managed to do this in an increasingly efficient way, it is thanks to a mix of standardization and unwavering state support. The three state nuclear giants receive low-interest loans, which greatly reduces the cost of financing. Unlike the West, where each project has been a new experiment with unique designs, China has often focused on building a handful of models, scaling its nuclear capability rapidly. But these are just the last steps of the recipe. To get here, Beijing had to invest in mastering each link in the supply chain. Made in China. As detailed in a extensive New York Times reportthe country has developed a robust national industry capable of forging everything from reactor vessels to the most critical components of each nuclear power plant. Components made in China, such as cargo pumps or ring cranes, cost half as much as their imported equivalents. A perfect example is the American-designed AP1000 reactor. Both the United States and China faced enormous challenges building this model. But as problems led to delays and skyrocketing costs that nearly buried the American industry, China paused, studied every flaw, and ended up developing an improved, nationalized version of the reactor: the CAP1000. It is now building nine reactors of this model within just five years, and at a drastically lower cost. The winning strategy. “China demonstrates that the construction and operation costs of nuclear power do not have to increase unabated,” explains Dan Kammenprofessor at Johns Hopkins University. Breaking the curse of cost overruns requires “more than technology: it requires an intelligent and strategic approach,” says Kammen. The result of this approach is that China is on track to overtake the United States as the largest nuclear power in the world in 2030. Today it has almost as many reactors under construction as the rest of the world combined. It is not a simple bet, but a State policy that does not end at its borders. China has already put two Hualong One reactors into operation in Pakistan, and has plans to continue expanding throughout Asia, Africa and South America. Waiting for the SMR. While China perfects the construction of large already proven reactors, Western countries follow a radically different path: betting on innovation through the private sector. Dozens of startups are working on a new generation of small modular reactors (SMR), theoretically cheaper and faster to build. Tech giants like Google, Amazon and Microsoft They have invested billions in them to power their energy-hungry data centers. The problem is not only that This technological advance will take years to maturebut China does not live apart from it. The country is already taking giant steps in future technologies, such as fourth-generation gas-cooled reactors or research into thorium reactors. And he could repeat the same strategies that have worked with traditional reactors. Image | CNNC In Xataka | China has turned the energy sector upside down: the first fusion-proof nuclear power plant is already a success

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.