China Goes Nuclear 1058
Rei writes "Wired reports that the People's Republic of China has announced plans to build 30 new nuclear reactors by the year 2020, and by 2050 have almost as much nuclear power as the entire world produces today. The reactors are to be pebble bed reactors, in which helium replaces radioactive, pressurized water. A Chinese research institution demonstrated the safety of their test reactor against meltdown by shutting off the coolant."
Nuclear energy works! (Score:4, Interesting)
Que unfounded paranoia
warning : sig contains ad you may not like, but i'll give you a gmail account if you sign up
Nice (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, pebble bed reactors are very safe.
I just wish nuclear power wasn't politically dead in the USA. It's really the only way to replace all the coal and oil we burn to produce the huge amount of electricity we use.
Re:Couldn't be done in U.S. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nice (Score:5, Interesting)
Now only if... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nah, that would never happen!
Instead, their socialist buddies claim the Bush administration liberated Iraq for oil, althought Bush-Chenery energy policy has been, since the 2000 election campaign, to increase the number of nuclear reactors.
Helium. (Score:3, Interesting)
Though, I do wish them luck. I hope that USA will re-examine nuclear power combined with energy storage.
Three China Island? (Score:2, Interesting)
On the topic of growth, I have spent a total of 10 days in China in the last two years. Last year there were more bikes than cars in Shekou in the Shenzhen area, but now I swear there are an equal number of cars to bikes. The real kicker is that these cars are BIG and expensive. We are talking about full-sized Volkswagens, Buicks, minivans, and wagons. Yes, there are Mercedes too. You'd think that they'd be looking at little Euro-boxes given money and space constraints, but status and face (mianzi) are too important I guess.
For a full report, I suggest you take a look at my trip notes:
China Observations [webword.com]
(How many guanxi points do I get for this posting?)
good long-term energy policy (Score:3, Interesting)
China is in the middle of an enormous boom, and it's excellent to see that they have learned from the mistakes of their neighbours, and aren't heading down the path that the rest of us seem intent on going down.
Re:Bomb em... (Score:1, Interesting)
rediculous (Score:2, Interesting)
Man. I'm glad I saw you spell it that way, but you surprised me by not writing 'nucular'. 3,000 killed? In case you didn't noticed there's a large dead zone and tens of thousands more, including downriver and downwind areas have been affected.
Ok, blame it on the people who ran the plant, their practices, the old graphite reactor, etc, but don't play the tune that nuclear power is safe. These are among the most toxic substances on earth and half-lives are in decades if not centuries. All it takes is an accident.
Storage of waste is also a serious issue, probably easier for the Beijing governement to handle as they have a way of handling protesters that US administrations can only fantasize about. The Hanford site, in Washinton state is a damn mess and we still don't have Yucca mountain or anything else permanent. All waste in the US is 'temporarily housed' and piling up. Touchy stuff to transport, too.
Better hope the chinese do an excellent job on those, all it takes is one Oops and another thousand square miles is dead land for centuries.
Re:Nuclear energy works! (Score:3, Interesting)
It is also almost impossible to carry out any "clean up", even if the money was available.
Having said this, I personally believe the chances of an accident in a modern reactor are very low. If they could be sited in useless land (e.g. desert) as well, they benefits would outweigh the risks.
China on its way to becoming #1 superpower?? (Score:2, Interesting)
The US seems to be getting mired in reactionary legislation which is restricting technological creativity (eg. ban on stem cell research).
Re:Nuclear energy works! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm surprised that noone has mentioned subduction zones yet... I mean, most of the dangerous isotopes are heavier than iron and will sink, so what is the big problem? We don't need to drill down to the mantle; just down to where the crust starts to soften.
this is a very good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
these pebble bed reactors just can not melt down, the design is such that their no possibility of a run away self-sustaining chain reaction taking hold
do antinuclear types like the alternative? middle east conflicts fueled by oil prices? air pollution and smog?
and proponents of green energy do not seem to understand their science: you can't scale up geothermal, wind, solar, tidal, ocean thermal gradient, etc, to meet one tenth of the modern world's energy needs
the much vaunted vaporware hydrogen promise: where do hydrogen proponents think the hydrogen comes from? i don't know why people don't understand such a simple concept: you need to spend more energy freeing hydrogen from water or hydrocarbons than anything you gain from using it as an energy medium
biodiesel sounds interesting to me, and fusion is always the holy grail, but these are unproven technoogies today... if you are a true green energy believer, then get to work here, and roll up your sleeves working on fusion or biodiesel: this is where the most promise lies for your efforts
and of course, the "just use less energy" crowd: when you figure out how to tell people to stop using gas and nuclear and start riding bikes, get back to me
meanwhile, i applaud the chinese, they see the writing on the wall: an overactive economy, demanding more and more gas and coal, and skyhigh oil prices and a volatile middle east... for the chinese, a pebble bed reactor commitment is a no-brainer
now if only the nimby types in the us could understand the wisdom of embracing pebble bed nuclear energy to combat reliance on middle east oil
but of course, simple fear of the unknown and ignorance of simple tech means the us will be left dependent on volatile undependable oil and gas and coal, while the chinese enjoy a safe, stable, cheap energy source
apparently, the nimby crowd in the us sees less risk in sending their sons and daughters to iraq than building a nuclear reactor of new design without any chernobyl or 3 mile island implications
this is not silkwood or the china syndrome folks, the stakes are accutely high in today's world: adjust your antinuclear opinion appropriately please
Better than what they do now... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is a much much better solution for them, both economically and especially environmentally. There were stories that they could only ramp up the turbines from stop(a process that took about 6 hours) at night, because the resulting ploom of yellow sulfur smoke couldn't be seen. Once the burner was at full temperature by dawn, no more yellow smoke, and thus no more concerned citizens.
Like the Sellafield reprocessing plant? (Score:5, Interesting)
How about supergun or space elevator? (Score:5, Interesting)
How about the space elevator I keep hearing about here on Slashdot?... No explosive danger there either! Small/medium sized containers could be hoisted to orbit, then directed towards the sun with just a little force. Could make the containers or lift cars with some type of balistic parachute too, so if the cord breaks, the containers land safely in the sea where they can be recovered without exposure.
I'm not too fond of the idea of exploding radioactive bottle-rockets, but the way things are going, we may not have to think like that for too much longer. There are lots of new technologies that could help us safely get our waste to the sun. Best part about that...it's not on earth anymore! No need to worry about theft from the terrorists now and no need to worry about warning the the rabbit-people 50,000 years from now. Yucca mountain may just become a "low-level" waste type site for materials that just don't need to be hoisted to the sun, like all those slightly used Tyvec suits and minimally contaminated whatnot.
The idea of putting our nuclear waste on the sun isn't so far fetched. We just need to come up with a safe way of handling it until it gets there.
REALITY (Score:5, Interesting)
REALITY 2:
All the plants in this country have run past their intended design lives, AND are 30-40 years out of date with modern technology.
REALITY 3:
Modern bead reactors of the type the chinese are building are VASTLY less likely to meltdown than any reactor currently running in the US. The coolant in a bead reactor actually catalyses the reaction, so without coolant, there is no reaction.
People in this country are totally irrational when it comes to nuclear power. We need this stuff, if only to replace the seriously aging reactors we already have. This is one place where I want to beat the snot out of all the left-wingers who won't be happy with anything that doesn't run on fairy dust and pot.
Re:Communism is good for something (Score:5, Interesting)
You ask who cares?
Well, China is playing a game of accepting limited market economy while still controling many economic things, including some prices, as it sees fit. China is accepted by business interests because it has made committments to the WTO and other institutions. However, it is still classified as a developing country and therefore gets a lot of slack from the WTO. This also means it gets a lot of development loans at great rates and other things. If all it did was preach communism, it would not be in this position. There have been real changes in China, some incomplete, but many progressive.
Regardless, Lenin, Mao, Marx, etc. would probably not consider current China (PRC) communist. If communism to you means a socialist state controlled by one party of elites and the military interactive in the market economy, then yes it is. Otherwise, I wouldn't so easily label it.
Re:Nuclear energy works! (Score:3, Interesting)
you need to put it somewhere where it's pretty likely to stay undisturbed for 50000 years or thereabouts, which, while probably possible, is not all that easy, especially with the special handling it needs at every stage.
I agree keeping the waste secured for 10000+ years is nice, as that's the timeframe necessary to end up with waste that's less hot than the input fuel. However, it is not a necessary condition for it to be safer than other methods of energy production (including their fuel cycle). And most of the long-term repository solutions I've seen, like Yucca Mountain, don't involve continuing to handle the fuel after it's stored. You stick it in its containers, put the containers in place, attach the drip covers, and provide electrical power to the fans for 60 years, and that's it, basically. (Though if you wanted to maximize the repository capacity, after the waste has cooled some you could place it closer together). And the geologic barriers alone are likely to provide protection for the water table in excess of 10,000 years, not counting all the manmade mechanisms that are being put in place.
Reprocessing makes things much better, as the "seriously nasty high level waste" also has very short half-lives by definition. With reprocessing, your waste very small in quantity and actually comparably radioactive to the fuel within that 300 year period. But I worry about the chance of proliferation from reprocessing.
Re:How about supergun or space elevator? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dump it on the Moon. It's still safely out of the hands of bad people, it still won't get into the ground water, and despite Jules Vern's stories, there is nothing living there to care about the radiation. Plus, this has the added benefit of being retreivable. Who knows, in a few hundred years there may be a good use for all of that stuff, or a good way to recycle it. If it's on the Moon, all it requires is a short trip, and a nice stroll in a spacesuit, to get it back; if it's in the Sun, its a further trip, a more difficult landing, and the stoll in the spacesuit is far less comfortable. <bad joke>Unless we go at night, but landing in the dark would suck.</bad joke>
In the end, I think nuclear power is inevitable. Sure, solar, wind, and geothermal have their place, and maybe a big one, but we are still going to need nuclear to fill in the gaps.
Re:Seems much more of a threat to the US than Iraq (Score:1, Interesting)
these soldiers [go.com] are much more of a threat to US citizens on US soil than either the chinese military or the rest of the axis of evil's militaries.
Re:Nuclear energy works! (Score:3, Interesting)
The only problem is that research needs to be done how, where and if it is possible to use steady downward magma flows which would take the stuff with them. But this research would be probably worth it, considering all the geological information you would also get from it.
For the anti nuclear nuts here which even dislike such a solution: Did you know that that magnetic field depends on the natural radioactivity in the inner earth? Yes, the Kalium 40 keeps the earth's core molten and therefore able to generate the currents which cause the earth's magnetic field, which shield us from dangerous radiation...
(*) - I can't find the source now... maybe it was a
Re:Squandered U.S. technical lead... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nuclear energy works! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nuclear energy works! (Score:4, Interesting)
I must agree! And so does the wildlife: There's about a dozen deers living within the fenced area around the Bruce "B" nuclear power plant here in Ontario. And why not! the radiation levels around nuclear power plants are *lower* than those found in cities.
The Canadian Shield (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nuclear energy works! (Score:3, Interesting)
Try one of these [scientificsonline.com].
Re:But we'll all DIE! (Score:3, Interesting)
My point: GA really do know how to design safe reactors.
(Background: nuclear reactors operate in a so-called "critical" state, where exactly enough neutrons are produced by nuclear reactions to balance those lost by escape or absorption. In a working reactor, about 0.7% of those neutrons come from spontaneous decay of fission products; they're called "delayed" neutrons, because you have to wait for the fission product to decay over the next few seconds before the neutron comes out. Those few delayed neutrons make all the difference, because the time scale for fission-and-moderation is measured in microseconds. The other 99.3% of the neutrons are called "prompt", and you usually want to make sure you don't make a prompt-critical assembly, unless you're in the business of making nuclear weapons. Blowing the rods instantaneously out of a reactor core is one of the more dangerous things you can do with it, unless the core was designed specifically for that use.)
Re:The Canadian Shield (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you think the chances are Canadians are going to tolerate the U.S. and the rest of the world shipping their nuclear waste to Canada for disposal. The problem with nuclear waste is the stigma is so bad no one wants it near them even if someone does figure out a safe way to store it or reprocess it.
I'm a little skeptical any mine shaft will prove long term viable. Its extremely hard to keep them dry, especially if you allow for the possibility that the civilization that has to fund maintaining the storage site may not last as long as the waste.
Re:Nuclear energy works! (Score:2, Interesting)
And there are materials that aren't concerned about exposure to saltwater (titanium oxide, for one).
Re:Nuclear energy works! (Score:4, Interesting)
During the 40's and 50's in particular the U.S. was in an extreme hurry to develop the bomb before Hitler did and to build more bombs than Stalin so they were more than a little messy while they were in a hurry. They also processed small mountains of Uranium and hefty quantities of plutonium. Rocky Flats and Hanford were a plutonium reprocessing facilities which are especially messy. If I recall Hanford [state.or.us] has a plume of radioactive waste working its way towards the Columbia river which is a water source for major cities in the Northwest. It is a study in A. how hard it is to store radioactive waste safely and B. the danger of letting it just get dumped in the ground as some here have proposed.
There are horror stories about Rocky Flats where they apparently mixed low level waste with water and pumped it into sprinklers to water the grass in out of the way parts of the facility.
I think Rocky Flats is being turned in to a wildlife park as we speak. It is in close proximity to the cities of Denver and Boulder.
Re:Nuclear energy works! (Score:1, Interesting)
Missing the central point.. (Score:1, Interesting)
No nuke plants have been built in the US, not only because of the NIMBY factor but because their cost runs into the *billions*. So, China engineers a design that has the laws of physics working *for* them instead of against, gets tons of cheap reactors and laughs all the way to the bank when everyone else is fighting over the last scraps of fossil fuels in 20 years.
-
Re:Nuclear energy works! (Score:3, Interesting)
Fact is my car is suppoed to achieve 35 on their test track, and I routinely do better than that, even with a fully loaded car.
Lot of factors that result in unusual speeds.
Wind, pump precision, terrain...
But the idea of everyone moving 55 I find quite amusing. I've often toyed with the idea of start a protest of "civil obedience" where people would obey *every* traffic law (proper number of car lengths driving no more than the speed limit, slowing down if someone cuts into that space, etc).
Ah, the chaos that would result...
Re:Nuclear energy works! (Score:2, Interesting)
The waste from Rocky Flats is part of what's supposed to be going to Yucca Mountain. You're right when you say that it's in close proximity to Denver and Boulder. It's depressingly close. Worse, some of the most densely poppulated areas of Denver are directly to the west of the site, meaning if there was ever an incident involving an air release of radioactive materials, the prevailing winds would push the plume directly over them. Whether Yucca Mountain or somewhere else, this stuff has to go somewhere. For those interested, Rocky Flats has a website [rfets.gov].
BTW, I remember hearing something about a techniqe to immobilize plutonium-based radioactive waste in glass beads, supposedly rendering it less harmful. Does anyone remember anything about that?
One good reason at least (Score:4, Interesting)
Risks! I say, Risks! This new thing is RISKY! We'd be all for it if it didn't make insects get real huge and glow and stuff. But since atomic energy is so RISKY we'd better stay with fossil fuels, shall we?
After all, burning coal and oil is perfectly safe!
-- MarkusQ
Progress of Technology (Score:2, Interesting)
If they last 100 years, that`d be good enough. 100 years ago, we didn`t have manned flight, or the internet, or *insert favorite technological invention*. But we did have pollution, from the coal and oil that powered the Industrial Revolution.
100 years from now, I expect elevators to space, deep-bore mines in the Earth crust, and oceanic hydroculture. Dealing with nuclear waste should be relatively trivial.
The choice is between more pollution through fossil fuels, or nuclear power, which generates a limited amount of very dangerous waste. If you were alive 100 years from now, which would you prefer - global climate change, or radioactive waste, stored in a large underground warehouse?
Re:The Canadian Shield (Score:1, Interesting)
The sinking of shafts is expensive - on the order of $15M for a cement-lined shaft that goes down, say, 1km. That's a major capital project for a mining company, but pretty much loose change for the government.
Underground waste disposal in the Canadian shield could actually be relatively cheap if the methods of hard rock mining were applied to it. Furthermore, the costs are not all up-front - you create rooms for storage as you need them.
Re:One good reason at least (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately Three Mile Island and Chernobyl proved they were right. They are risky. They are extremely complex and very fallible.
"After all, burning coal and oil is perfectly safe!"
Obviously it isn't but coal fired power plants don't leave huge uninhabitable dead zones like Chernoybl did and have the risk of killing large numbers of people all at once, or make people flee their homes...forever.
Fossil fuel pollution is a slower and harder to quantify risk. Maybe in the end if the Greenhouse effect proves to be real fossil fuels will prove to be even more dangerous and threaten the whole planet, but by the times its an undeniable problem it may be to late to stop it.
Re:REALITY (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:One good reason at least (Score:3, Interesting)
It wasn't overblown. They just got lucky and stopped the meltdown before they had a reactor breach. If they hadn't there would have been a massive radiation release. Just because the consequences were mild doesn't change the fact that it could have easily been a major disaster. Three Mile Island completely shook confidence in the safety of nuclear reactors long before Chernobyl showed the worst case scenario.
From the NRC report [nrc.gov]:
"Because adequate cooling was not available, the nuclear fuel overheated to the point at which the zirconium cladding (the long metal tubes which hold the nuclear fuel pellets) ruptured and the fuel pellets began to melt. It was later found that about one-half of the core melted during the early stages of the accident. Although the TMI-2 plant suffered a severe core meltdown, the most dangerous kind of nuclear power accident, it did not produce the worst-case consequences that reactor experts had long feared. In a worst-case accident, the melting of nuclear fuel would lead to a breach of the walls of the containment building and release massive quantities of radiation to the environment. But this did not occur as a result of the Three Mile Island accident."
Re:Nuclear energy works! (Score:3, Interesting)
So what happens if someone makes a mistake, not that people ever do, that results in a critical mass or a heat buildup that leads to a fire, especially when the facility is full and there are thousands of tons of waste in it.
How impervious to heat and fire are the ceramic/glass casings.
Re:One good reason at least (Score:3, Interesting)
They just got lucky and stopped the meltdown before they had a reactor breach.
No, they didn't "just get lucky". In a light water reactor like TMI, when the moderator (=water) boils off, the nuclear reactions grind to a halt. This helps prevent Chernobyl style accidents, which happened in part because the RBMK reactor is graphite moderated and has a positive void coefficient, i.e. when the coolant boils off, the reaction rate increases. See the difference?
Coolant boils off, heat output of reactor increases = bad. This can't happen in a light-water reactor.
If they hadn't there would have been a massive radiation release.
Even if the core would have melted through the pressure vessel, the TMI reactor (and thus core) was still within a containment building. Again, as opposed to Chernobyl.
Just because the consequences were mild doesn't change the fact that it could have easily been a major disaster.
Umm, no. Physics makes it impossible for TMI to have become a Chernobyl. TMI is about a worst-case scenario for a light-water reactor. TMI shows that while a light-water reactor accident is a financial disaster for the company owning it, it won't kill thousands of people.
Re:One good reason at least (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't say it was going to be another Chernobyl exactly but you are simply BS'ing everyone if you are trying to claim everything was within the parameters of the design and there was no danger.
In particular you are leaving out the wild card which was a 1000 cubic feet 1000 PSI Hydrogen bubble that formed in the vessel from the breakdown of the superheated water. It had an explosive potential of 3 tons of TNT which would have been enough to breach the vessel and containment if it had exploded.
There was also a significant chance the Hydrogen bubble would have continued to grow. If it had it could have uncovered the entire core. If so the core might well have done a China Syndrome and melted through the floor of the vessel and containment building.
There was enough water pooled at the bottom of the vessel there was also a significant chance of a steam explosion when the melting core hit it and that could have also breeched the reactor.
All in all you seem to be claiming certainty about a situation that was unprecedented and anything but certain.
Re:One good reason at least (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't say it was going to be another Chernobyl exactly but you are simply BS'ing everyone if you are trying to claim everything was within the parameters of the design and there was no danger.
That's why I'm not saying that. It is well documented that several parameters exceeded their design limitations during the accident. And yes, there was danger and the reactor could have been even more destroyed. But it wasn't danger of blowing skyhigh and then continuing to burn for days, a la Chernobyl, e.g. danger of spreading significant amount of radioactivity into the environment.
In particular you are leaving out the wild card which was a 1000 cubic feet 1000 PSI Hydrogen bubble that formed in the vessel from the breakdown of the superheated water.
No, I'm not leaving it out. While it was a cause of great concern at the time, it was later determined that there was not enough oxygen in the vessel which could have caused the hydrogen explosion (one reason for this is of course that the superheated water didn't simply "break down" as you imply, rather it is a reaction with the Zr cladding where the cladding is oxidized).
For more information see e.g. this report sumamry [stellar-one.com].
It had an explosive potential of 3 tons of TNT which would have been enough to breach the vessel and containment if it had exploded.
See the link above. There wasn't enough Zr in the reactor to produce enough pressure to break the containment building.
Additionally, Westinghouse (the manufacturer) did some calculations where they concluded that the pressure vessel and high pressure system itself would perhaps have been able to contain the estimated 3000-4000 PSI blast pressure from the hypothetical hydrogen explosion.
If so the core might well have done a China Syndrome and melted through the floor of the vessel and containment building.
Yes, it was certainly a very real risk that the core would have melted through the pressure vessel, but how did you imagine it would melt itself out from the containment building? Gravity pulls the core downward while it ought to go sidewards if it is to reach the containment walls.
There was enough water pooled at the bottom of the vessel there was also a significant chance of a steam explosion when the melting core hit it and that could have also breeched the reactor.
Perhaps. But again there's the containment building preventing further catastrophy. OTOH, as the core was partially submerged in that same water, there was little possibility of a sudden big clump of molten core dropping into it as the water constantly cooled the core. And if the water wouldn't have been there in which case the core would have melted more dramatically, well there wouldn't be water there either to cause the steam explosion, now would it?
All in all you seem to be claiming certainty about a situation that was unprecedented and anything but certain.
I'm claiming that TMI couldn't have developed into a Chernobyl. They were radically different designs, so spreading FUD about light-water reactors on the basis of Chernobyl is totally ridiculous.
Re:Nuclear energy works! (Score:2, Interesting)
You people lack some imagination. Really.
For starters "burrying nuked waste is perfectly safe" sounds great but is a lie, because *you* deny future generations (and I'm talking millions of years) to use that part of earthy soil, because *you* need your energy to be cheap. Of course you have to think for 2 seconds longer, and about consequences which are in the future.
Reprocessing means a lot of traffic, a lot of vulnerability to criminal activity, a potential risk of dissipation. It also means more waste, and the merrits of reprocessing are really not that big compared to other sources of energy.
Re-ignition of the whole atomic powersource industry would be harmfull for our industries (and our planet, mankind, yadeyade..) which are trying to innovate with fuelcells, engines that consume less, vehciles that weigh less, in fact, the bulk of the tech industry is primarily focussed on progress on many fields, with efficiency and performance as the main goal. These solutions exist today, but the manufacturing costs are still too high for mass consumption, however, slowly, progress is being made in this direction as well.
Re:One good reason at least (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing thats ridiculous is that, after that list of "possible", "very real risk", "further catastrophy", that you are still trying to contend that TMI wasn't extremely dangerous.
I'll say it again, they were lucky. They pretty obviously didn't anticipate what happened in their design.
I should add that the PBMR reactor everyone is pitching as the next generation reactor here, not light water reactors, apparently does contain large quantities of graphite. If there is a breach in the coolant system and air or oxygen hits the pebble bed there is at least a chance its going to burn like Chernobyl. The graphite in their reactor burned for the better part of 9 days and was the main source of the plume.
Alternate Methods (Score:2, Interesting)