Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology Science

China to Pioneer Melt-Down Proof Reactors 846

pease1 writes "FT.com reports China is poised to develop the world's first commercially operated "pebble bed" nuclear reactor. If successfully commercialized, the pebble bed reactor would be the first radically new reactor design for several decades. It would push China to the forefront of development of a technology that researchers claim offers a new "meltdown-proof" alternative to standard water-cooled nuclear power stations." This was mentioned in September of last year but now looks as though the plan is moving forward.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China to Pioneer Melt-Down Proof Reactors

Comments Filter:
  • Funny... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:33PM (#11610316)
    Funny how it is, generally speaking, the same group of people who berate the US for our dependence on mideast oil, while at the same time vehemently protesting any movement down any path that might actually allow us to realistically release ourselves from some of that dependence, e.g., new nuclear plants. But no: must ... be ... scared ... of ... anything ..."nuclear" (including things like Cassini [rtis.com]...)

    Face it: from a standpoint of physics, wind, water, and solar, and the mechanisms for extracted energy from them, are NOT ENOUGH to sustain any semblance of the current lifestyles, right or wrong, without drastic and dramatic changes that would have far-reaching economic and social implications. We need to REPLACE the power sources we aim to wean ourselves from. And nuclear is the answer. Yes, there can be conservation. Yes, there can be debate. Yes, there can be compact fluorescents and LEDs. But those will only affect so much. Our energy requirements, as well as those of the rest of the world, are growing, and we should be leading the fucking way on the front of nuclear power, INCLUDING fusion, building new plants, and making a lot of investments in this area.

    And we're simply not doing that. Fuck it: people say Social Security is the "third rail" of American politics? Energy policy is the power plant that electrifies it.

    Perhaps China's communist regime has an advantage after all: they can actually do things that will be GOOD for their country, like building nuclear power plants without endless ranting and raving from protesters, and storing waste safely in places like Yucca Mountain (because having waste at ~150 temporary, insecure facilities is certainly better than having it at one site, imperfect as it may be).
    • Re:Funny... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Mick Ohrberg ( 744441 ) <mick.ohrbergNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:36PM (#11610376) Homepage Journal
      ...must ... be ... scared ... of ... anything ..."nuclear"

      Nono, that's "nucular [radlab.com]". "Nuclear" stuff is good - "nucular" stuff is bad.

    • Re:Funny... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Profane MuthaFucka ( 574406 ) <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:39PM (#11610441) Homepage Journal
      Good thing I'm an exception. More nuke plants, less foreign oil.

      I like nuclear power because the FRENCH who are smarter than Americans like nuclear power.

      Now I think between you and me, we've manage to troll the entire known universe with just two posts.
    • Re:Funny... (Score:3, Informative)

      by rabtech ( 223758 )
      Actually the NRC has recently approved new construction permits; the US for the first time in a long time will begin constructing new nuke plants.

      In some ways this has turned out well for us because we are jumping straight from Generation 1 to Generation 3/4 power plants, which are safer, produce less waste, and are cheaper to run.
      • Re:Funny... (Score:3, Informative)

        by gunnk ( 463227 )
        Unfortunately, however, they still don't follow the meltdown-proof pebble bed design. They may be safer than Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but as fas as I know they can still theoretically melt down.

        A pebble bed reactor cannot melt down. The hotter it gets the less energy it produces. If it overheats the fission reaction fails.

        This is where the Chinese are making what I believe to be a great decision. Why bolt 8 zillion safety mechanisms to prevent a meltdown when you can forego all that cost by bu
    • Re:Funny... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tenebrious1 ( 530949 )
      Funny how it is, generally speaking, the same group of people who berate the US for our dependence on mideast oil, while at the same time vehemently protesting any movement down any path that might actually allow us to realistically release ourselves from some of that dependence, e.g., new nuclear plants. But no: must ... be ... scared ... of ... anything ..."nuclear" (including things like Cassini...)

      Insightful? How is nuclear power going to replace oil? Nuclear plants produce electricty; over half our
      • Re:Funny... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Maxillo ( 857576 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @05:28PM (#11612010)
        There is a push develope fuel cell technology and hydrogen power for transportation, ie cars. Where do you think the electricity to extract H2 from H20 or methane will come from?

        Then you are back to burning fossil fuels to produce electricity, and then to produce H2, which will then be converted to electricty again to drive car motor.

        It's easy to see that with each conversion there are inherent inefficiencies and energy is lost. If you are using fossil fuels to produce the electricity, it would be much more efficient to just burn the fuel in the cars engine to extract its energy in one step.
    • Re:Funny... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nomadic ( 141991 )
      new nuclear plants. But no: must ... be ... scared ... of ... anything ..."nuclear"

      Ah, the idiotic strawman of the pro-nuclear crowd rears its head again. Where are these mythical people who automatically engage in "endless ranting and raving" protests against anything involved with nuclear energy? I hear them vilified on slashdot a lot, but I never seem to meet any of them in real life. Probably because for the most part they don't exist. But it's a lot more convenient to blame these illusory peop
      • Re:Funny... (Score:3, Informative)

        by bluGill ( 862 )
        The MN state legislator for starters. The nuclear power plant near my house has been in danger of being shutdown more than once because they couldn't stand the idea of clean power.

        Meanwhile there are several coal power plants in the state that are polluting the air, making eating fish dangerous.
      • Re:Funny... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Atzanteol ( 99067 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @04:59PM (#11611616) Homepage
        Where are these mythical people who automatically engage in "endless ranting and raving" protests against anything involved with nuclear energy?

        I believe these are the people you're looking for [cnn.com] (scroll down a bit).
      • Re:Funny... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Dr. Zowie ( 109983 )
        Many of those people live near me, here in Boulder, Colorado.

        The waste isn't nearly the issue that it's made out to be. The problem is that the risks are overhyped. Tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths a year are attributable to cancers and respiratory disease caused by fossil fuel burning to produce electricity. For example, most of the southwest corner of Colorado and the northwest corner of New Mexico have high levels of sulfur, cadmium, mercury, and even radioactives in the air because of coal-bu
        • From the ORNL [ornl.gov]:

          Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations.

          I first heard this fact from a professor of mine, and it made sense at the time as coal is ultimately a source for uranium as well as radium. (That's where the Curies got their uranium from, after all.) This is the first time I did a web-search to verify his statement, and I wasn't surprised to see that it agrees with other people's calculations (Google for "coal radiation").

    • by Corpus_Callosum ( 617295 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @04:41PM (#11611352) Homepage
      The reason that the U.S. is not innovating in the area of energy production has to do with politics. America controls (directly and in the case of Saudi, indirectly) world oil production and therefore world energy. Alternate energy sources, especially those that free nations from the oil addiction reduce dependence on America and therefore reduce America's power.

      China, knowing this, is actively persuing alternate energy policy including nuclear, hydrogen and more novel approaches. They want to detach themselves from the oil addiction so that they have independence from the U.S. and U.S. controled energy interests.

      Again, politics.

      But, the results are inevitable: As a result of these politics, the Chinese will inevitably control more advanced and more important energy technologies (both economicaly and ecologically). So the conclusion to this will be exactly the opposite of that desired by the status quo (America controlled energy). However, the administration doesn't care because they will be retired, rich, fat and happy (or dead of old age) when China turns it all around on America and effectively takes control of world energy production.
    • Re:Funny... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tm2b ( 42473 )
      Actually, there's a really good article called Who Killed Nuclear Power? [21stcentur...cetech.com] on the demise of the US Nuclear power industry. It turns out to be a complex mix of economics and politics, surrounding the both the Three Mile Island incident and the end of the 1970s oil crisis - it was believed that the planned power plants were not going to be needed and would no longer be economical.

      Check out the article, it's really interesting.
    • Re:Funny... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
      Nice raving rant. Funny how people committed to nuclear power talk in absolutes like "protesting any movement down any path". Nuclear power, in their minds (or at least their mouths) is the only way to power humanity that can work. Of course that's not true, even if nuclear power were a viable method that didn't cost much more than its risks are worth. It's easy to spot the nuke cranks: they're the ones casting nukes as the only way out of a desperate crisis, to try to silence all discussion of nuclear prob
      • Re:Funny... (Score:3, Insightful)

        1. I'm not a "nuke booster" or a "nuke crank".

        2. I didn't present it as the "only way out" of any crisis, but the energy density of nuclear power and return on investment is difficult to ignore.

        3. There are problems. Yucca Mountain, for example, is LESS of a problem than the situation we are CURRENTLY IN. Is it perfect? No. Is there seepage? Yes. Will it last "10,000 years"? Probably not. But the current storage is leaps and bounds WORSE in every category, not to mention being in dozens of different locat
  • by grahamsz ( 150076 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:34PM (#11610341) Homepage Journal
    While this is a worthy achievement, and will certainly ease a lot of fears about third world countries operating reactors.

    Unfortunately these reactors will still produce quite a bit of waste, and will still need to be decomissioned. Given how poorly the western world handles these issues, i can't imagine how well it'll be done elsewhere...
    • Given how poorly the western world handles these issues, i can't imagine how well it'll be done elsewhere...

      Why is it that we tend to assume that we (in America - which is what I assume you mean by the Western world) always do things better? So just because we do a poor job of handling our waste, that means China will automatically do a worse job?

      Remember, this is a country with over 3000 years of continuous existence, compared to our 200 years. I would suggest to you that they may know more about
      • this is a country with over 3000 years of continuous existence, compared to our 200 years. I would suggest to you that they may know more about maintaining their environment and preserving for the future than we do.

        This incredible naivité made my day. Thank you.

        What is the world coming to? Don't the kids of today learn any cynicism while growing up!?

        I could Google for some references on pollution in China, but you can do that yourself. (N B, China is a closed society that wants to look good.

  • by ArsonSmith ( 13997 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:34PM (#11610344) Journal
    is there any diffrence in the ammount of waist produced? Being assured that it wont melt down or spin out of controll is good, but to get past the anti nuke arguments it'll have to be at least a little cleaner.
    • by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:37PM (#11610400)
      > is there any diffrence in the ammount of waist produced? Being assured that it wont melt down or spin out of controll is good, but to get past the anti nuke arguments it'll have to be at least a little cleaner.

      Judging from how many McDonald's french fries have to be eaten to produce a tank of biodiesel, nuclear energy produces no waist at all.

  • by mixy1plik ( 113553 ) * <mhunt@ecin.nFORTRANet minus language> on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:35PM (#11610357)
    Oppressive communist regimes, the new driving force in the world of innovation. No wait, communism is bad, right?

    "If you don't like this nuclear facility next to your rice paddy, you can go to jail."

    As China's growth continues to surge, there will be more examples of China taking the lead in things- both good AND bad. When the government can tell you what to do (or else), things get done.

    • Also, if the new design is flawed or not working out, will the Chinese government admit it or go through great lengths to cover it up?

      Foreign Visitor: How is that new reactor going?
      Government: Perfect, the answer to all our power needs.
      Foreign Visitor: Why are those people bald?
      Government: Ummmm, those are Charlie Brown impersonators, we can't get enough of that lovable Charlie Brown.
      Foreign Visitor: and these three legged dogs?
      Government: We love that Alice in Chains album too. Nothing else to see here, m
  • Proof (Score:5, Funny)

    by anum ( 799950 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:35PM (#11610360)
    I am not an alarmist and I do believe that nuclear power can be safe BUT does anyone else get that deja vu, creepy music in the background, the monster is RIGHT behind you feeling whenever any one says something is *-proof?

    Just me then? OK.
    • Re:Proof (Score:5, Informative)

      by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:46PM (#11610551) Homepage Journal
      Actually, the design of these reactors is nothing short of ingenious.

      The reactive elements are spherical pebbles, each with just a tiny amount of radioactive material inside.

      Individually, they do not have enough material to go critical.
      when you put them all together inside the reactor, the shape of them puts its nearest neighbour just in range to react.

      If the reaction begins to cascade, the elements heat up and expand. This automatically seperates them and cools the stack back down.

      You can pour new elements into the top, and extract the lowest from the bottom in a relatively safe manner.
      • Ever seen the bottom of a jar of nuts? That might be dense enough to get some bad shit happening.

        Imagine one peb cracking, and depositing the stuff on the bottom of the bed, which reacts more strongly with a few more pebs, causing a hot spot and some convection, which can crack more, etc.

        Some things that seem to be missing from the popular accounts: just what the pebs are coated with, how tough they are, and how long they are supposed to hold up to constant expansion and contraction.

        • by rewt66 ( 738525 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @04:16PM (#11610988)
          Cracking open is an interesting problem. Once the pebbles aren't in a spherical packing arrangement, you don't have the spacing anymore, and the concentration goes up. However...

          The reactor design (when functioning normally) is basically self-moderating. The "constant expansion and contraction" should only be a few degrees - it shouldn't be enough to cause serious thermal stress and/or fatigue on the pebbles.

          I am not a nuclear engineer, so take this with a grain of salt...
  • by wayward_son ( 146338 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:36PM (#11610379)
    So would the worse-case scenerio in a meltdown in China be called "The America Syndrome"?

  • by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:36PM (#11610388) Journal

    Somedays I'm convinced that China will become the sole economic superpower in the world in our lifetime. The US may still have a powerful military decades from now but it really looks like the Chinese want success more than we do. The fact that they are moving ahead with nuclear power is an example. Here in the US, you just can't get any kind of nuclear power plant built. We continue to use rediculous amounts of electricity but resist any attempts at becoming self-sufficient. The Chinese are hungry to improve their country while we Americans have become complacent and feel like we will always be on top. Once our debt gets to the point that other countries will no longer invest in us, we'll sink like a stone and China will take over (economically). They just want success more than we do.

    GMD

    • Speaking as a US citizen *we* want success but some of *us* will shout down and protest any and all attempts to research and/or build Nuclear Reactors.

      Europe wants success too. But they measure success as everybody gets a comfortable living, everyone is cared for and no person goes hungry.

      Remember, one of the most successful countries of all time was Nazi Germany.
    • Debtor vs Lender (Score:3, Insightful)

      The has gone from being the world's largest lender to the world's largest debtor...and interestingly enough one of the US's largest creditors is the Chinese central bank.

      We have gone from having the most enviable public school system in the industrialized world to having the flat-out worst.

      We don't invest in infrastructure, we don't protect our borders from illegal intrusion, we don't care about pollution or graft. As long as we can have the appearance of wealth...not to be confused with legitimate wealth w

      • Relax, I'm sure Bush's plan to cut the massive ever growing deficit will work out just fine. He is after so good at passing on ever single spending bill that ever comes across his desk. A true model for Fiscal Conservatism they'll all be saying in the future. Then we won't have to worry about that silly foreign powers who keep buying up all of our debt thing.

        Besides its not like China and the others will ever lose faith in the good old dollar. I'm sure they'll just keep buying US debt forever and ever...An
    • by demachina ( 71715 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:58PM (#11610740)
      The U.S. wont be able to sustain its current military excess if the rest of its economy craters, or if it does it will suck the life out of everything else as it did in the Soviet Union and when American economy starts looking like the Soviet Union's support for the government will collapse just as it did in the Soviet Union.

      The only other option for maintaining a huge military without a robust economy is to use it to dominate the economy and resources of the rest of the world though blackmail or outright intervention.

      In many respects the Chinese, and the Japanese, are already funding the U.S. military because they are the primary purchasers of the U.S. governments debt which is necessary to support the huge deficits, and a big chunk of those deficits are going in to exploding defense and homeland security spending.

      If the Chinese were to stop buying that debt they can place substantial pressure on the U.S. government unless someone else picks up the slack and that is likely to get worse not better. I'm not sure of the exact mechanics but I think if the chinese stop pegging their currency to the dollar, something the U.S. is pushing hard, that may also lead them to stop buying U.S. dollars and debt.

      If the Republican's were so foolish as to actualize start privatizing Social Security in the near term that is going to place even more pressure on the U.S. deficits because:

      A. the government will have to make up the shortfall it will create in paying out benefits to everyone over 55

      B. The current large Social Security surplus that is funding U.S. government debt will disappear meaning there will be even less money going to support the excess of the U.S. government.

      Based on the recent budget it appears the Bush administration plan is to continue inflating defense and homeland security spending, continue cutting taxes for the wealthy and slashing everything else(unless it benefits big corporations that support the Republicans (i.e. the Medicare reform sham for drug and health companies, Energy bill for big oil, coal and nuke, Social Security privitization for the big banks and investment firms, CEV and missile defense for Lockheed and Boeing).
    • by the-build-chicken ( 644253 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @04:20PM (#11611049)
      Once our debt gets to the point that other countries will no longer invest in us

      Nah, I don't really think America has to worry about its foreign debt too much...it's 4.4 trillion dollars...like they say, if you owe the bank $1000, you've got a problem...if you owe the bank $1000000, the banks got a problem. People won't stop investing because they're relying on the money coming back to them at some point in the future...so America can happily go on incuring more and more debt because they've gotten to a stage were other countries can't afford not to let them. Smart move when you think of it, building a superpower using other people money.
      • by El Cabri ( 13930 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @04:49PM (#11611462) Journal
        Here's how it works : China manufactures a huge amount of shoes, electronics, cloths, etc, while much of their own popultion leves with no electricity at home and one pair of shoes for the whole family. How come ? Low standard of living is accepted in the same way that it was accepted by pioneers in the Wild West : they know and are conviced that the future of their children is bright, that they will themselves be better off the next year. Throw in an oppressive central government and you have 1.3 bn+ people sticking together on the path of industrialization and toward being the most powerful single nation economy in the world.

        The bank's problem, as you say ? Currency is just paper, or at least it has been since the USD stopped being pegged to gold in the 70s, and the effective ultimate world currency became oil. What will happen is that China will gradually keep more and more of the shoes and DVD players that they make for their own population, trigering inflation in those countries that depend too much on imports for the comfort of their citizens.

        The US govt bet is that this process will be too slow and that the Chinese population will grow impatient, spoiled and greedy, undermining the central authority and breaking up the country into a myriad of third world, submissive entities.

      • "Nah, I don't really think America has to worry about its foreign debt too much...it's 4.4 trillion dollars...like they say, if you owe the bank $1000, you've got a problem...if you owe the bank $1000000, the banks got a problem. People won't stop investing because they're relying on the money coming back to them at some point in the future...so America can happily go on incuring more and more debt because they've gotten to a stage were other countries can't afford not to let them. Smart move when you think
    • There is some evidence that the Chinese economy is unstable. Right now its in a boom cycle due to rapid industrialization of its previously agricultural areas. This has brought a lot of investment from outside interests. However this growth is very much like the .com boom in the 90s. If China doesn't do something to stabilize growth soon they could face a massive recession.

      Personally I think the US needs to shape up quite a bit very soon. Many of the current trends are similar to the culture of the Roman e
    • by Vaystrem ( 761 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @04:30PM (#11611202)
      A few things.

      If you read the Wired article you will see that we too pursued pebble reactors, but due to the fuel rod type being more viable for military applications (like for navy ships) that is where the research dollars went and voila that's why we are where we are right now.

      Second, China is not the only one to pioneer this. There have been working Pebble Reactors in Germany and, get this, South Africa soon as well.

      Simultaneously its not that they want to improve their country more than we do its a question of logistics.

      China has relatively few, intact, natural resources and everything is imported from much further away than it is to the United States. There still is significant coal, oil, and natural gas production in the United States, while its mostly just coal within China, very dirty and quickly being depleted.

      As well the United States borders on the pacific and atlantic, making it easier for us to get goods from different parts of the world. China is 'mostly' landlocked and in a situation of future conflict (North Korea, Taiwan, Japan is not the sleeping creature many perceive, etc.) it would be very difficult for China to rely upon shipping lanes for necessary resources, hence the push for domestic capacity.

      Finally, China and India simply are out educating the rest of the world. They both put out more engineers per year than exist within the United States. They do not have as much resources 'yet' but its pretty fantastic when you stop to think that an engineer in his EARLY 30s could be the head of China's space program. That being said, when you can pick the best of the best from 1.2 billion people - you get some amazing individuals.

      The Western World's technological dominance will not last forever. If you want to see this as the first harbinger of that, feel free, but it is not the only sign.
      • South Africa (Score:3, Insightful)

        by HeghmoH ( 13204 )
        This is a minor point, but South Africa's involvement is not at all surprising. South Africa has some pretty high technology, due to its unique position as one of the only stable democracies on the continent, and being involved in various regional conflicts. They were the continent's only nuclear power until they voluntarily gave it up, they build some of their own military aircraft, and so being handy with reactor technology is not too surprising.
  • by DeusExMalex ( 776652 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:37PM (#11610390)
    just like england pioneered the unsinkable ship?
  • Geez... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JoeLinux ( 20366 ) <joelinux @ g m a i l . com> on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:37PM (#11610392)
    This is truly sad. Not to be a troll or anything, but the only reason we are not seeing a massive reduction in the amount of foreign oil we depend on, or improved air is because of the stigma attached to the world "nuclear".

    So, we continue to use oil and coal.

    For those of you who don't know, pebble bed reactors will allow for the increased use of the radioactive elements until they pose no significant threat. To use an analogy, the battery is almost completely drained. Also, they are inherently safer due to improved design. Their default position is one in which the reactive elements are in no position to cause any sort of melt-down.

    But hey, it has the word "nuclear" in it, so it has to be bad, right?

    Buncha tree-hugging softies.

    I'm out.
    • Re:Geez... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by demachina ( 71715 )
      I dont think going nuclear is going to do much to eliminate dependence on oil any time soon, unless you make a second large leap and move transportation to hydrogen or electricity which would be more feasible if you had a huge abundance of cheap electricty. You also have to phase out home heatin oil which is still used extensively on the East Cost.

      An expansion in nuclear capacity, in the near term, is primarily going to reduce natural gas use which is increasingly used to produce electricty because its c
  • Great for China (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:37PM (#11610398)
    In my opinion, one of China's greatest assets is its lack of current infrastructure. Imagine being able to design roads, dams, bridges, electricity generating plants, etc with 2005 technology without having to support an existing infrastructure.

    We're going to hear more stories of bullet trains [people.com.cn], monstrous dam projects [chinaonline.com] and now advancements in nuclear energy production.

    Good for China - start investing in them now.
  • by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:46PM (#11610545)
    For alternative fuels this century. While the United States continues its 'fight' for fossil fuels in the middle east, they will be spending their budget to completely remove themselves from the shackles of fossil fuels.

    just IMAGINE where we would be if we spent that $280 BILLION on the Iraq war funding technology to develop alternative fuels? When will we realize that fossil fuels are such an impediment and where we could get if we got real about losing the middle east (oil)?
    • How would spending $280 billion on alternative fuel research cow the public into self-censuring criticism of the government, its policies, the military, etc??

      The war on terror has been an incredibly useful device for the Republican party...they get to broaden their appeal to military types and flat-out bigots, they get free reign to pillage Alaska for a miniscule amount of oil, they get to paint criticism as "unpatriotic", and they get to defer serious debate because of course "we're at war!".

      They wouldn't

    • Still on the blood for oil game? Look at the numbers and try not to blush. 1. The US Imports roughly 70 percent of its oil 2. We get 23 percent of our imported oil from the middle east. 3. That means that 16 percent of our oil from the middle east 4. Under 5 percent of our oil comes from Iraq 5. We import roughly 11 million barrels a day 6. At 46 dollars a barrel that is $506 million a day. or $185 billion a year So your conclusion is that the US spent almost double what it costs to import its oil needs f
      • Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general control the liquidity of the world's oil market through OPEC control and access to most of the world's easily obtainable crude supply. The United States has done nothing but support this hegemony with puppet regimes, payouts, turning-a-blind-eye, etc.

        Seriously, the breakdown of imports and been brought up a thousand times and shot down a thousand times. Until Arabs lose control of the liquidity of the market, they control oil prices.

      • The point is that private U.S. corporations get the profits from that oil, but the public U.S. government is the one spending all the money. No one's claiming that the U.S. government is spending $280 billion to earn $185 billion; they're claiming that the people in power (Bush & Co.) are spending $280 billion of other peoples' (the U.S. populace's) money so that they and their friends can PERSONALLY pocket that $185 billion.

        I'm not saying whether the argument is true (although the outcome does appear
    • There major flaw in with your argument is that it includes nuclear with "alternative" energy sources. Most environmentalists don't, and are rigorously opposed to nuclear energy.

      I say move as much energy production to nuclear as possible, and then take an incremental approach to finding better, more realistic alternatives. Electric cars, for one, powered by nuclear-benerated electricity (ya know, just plug it in overnight) could be a step in the right direction.

      However I also can't deny the forces at wor
  • Whatever happened to "Integral Fast Reactors" [berkeley.edu] I heard about in the late 1980s, which were also supposed to be meltdown-proof? My understanding was that the configuration of the rods was such that if the reaction moved beyond a certain range, it actually dapened the reaction. (I'm relying on memory, and Google is of limited help, so forgive me for being fuzzy on the details.)

    • by redcliffe ( 466773 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @04:00PM (#11610783) Homepage Journal
      This is similiar technology, and quite a bit simpler to build. It can be basically just a big bucket with a tapered bottom to allow removal of pebbles. Cut of the water supply the temperature increases, the pebbles seperate due to heat expansion and the reaction slows down and comes to the equilibrium temperature which is set at the design time.
    • I like the integral fast reactor idea best, since the amount of high level radioactive waste is recycled and used as fuel. But there is still another innovative meltdown-proof design that is worth looking into.

      In Galena Alaska [imdiversity.com] there is proposed a reactor with a sub-critical cylinder of fuel, with a neutron-reflective sleeve that slides along it as the fuel is spent. Only the part of the fuel encased in the sleeve reacts, and if it is not moved periodically the reaction will cease. If it gets too hot a
  • Safe Nuclear Power (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jeffkjo1 ( 663413 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:46PM (#11610564) Homepage
    If we can build safe, pebble-bed nuclear reactors, GREAT! However, before we start up construction, the same problem that plagues conventional reactors exists; what are we going to do with the waste?
    Even if Yucca Mountain (or some other ground storage facility) happens, it's years and years away, and it seems foolish to continue to generate nuclear waste with no place to put it.
    • Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @04:05PM (#11610839) Journal
      ...nuke waste can, for the most part, be recycled. The media, however, is too busy playing boogeyman, and leading us down the path to being a 4th world country with horse drawn wagons and biomass generators providing citizens enough electricity to light a 20W bulb.
  • CanDU Reactors!? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:49PM (#11610596)
    Umm. Candu reactors shut down when they lose coolant because the coolant is what sustains the reaction. I'd say thats meltdown proof. They can crank out a heck of a lot more power than a pebble bed reactor because a pebble bed reactor creates less heat - unless thats what they are working on fixing.
  • Weapons potential? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MrZaius ( 321037 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:51PM (#11610632) Homepage
    Should this spread from China to the increasingly energy-hungry South Asian and African nations, will it have to be as heavily controlled as conventional reactors? Is it possible to use a pebble bed reactor to create weapons grade uranium or plutonium?
  • by ebrandsberg ( 75344 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @04:22PM (#11611090)
    Just to clear up some misconceptions, the idea of pebble-bed reactors has been around since the 50's, however, due to the political environment other designs were promoted and used, as they do have higher energy potentials than pebblebed reactors do. Basically, for a nuclear reactor to "melt down", you have to have a configuration where enough nuclear material can be close enough together for the material to stay critical and generate enough heat where it will start to melt. The core idea of a pebble-bed reactor is that you encapsulate each piece of the fusion material with a protective coating that insures that even if it was let loose to react in an uncontrolled manner, the protective coating would keep the material from melting into a larger mass, which would then generate more heat even faster, etc. If you can keep the material from melting together, you can't have a complete meltdown. Materials technology has come far enough so that these protective pellets can be made safe enough that the pebblebed reactor can be created. Does this prevent people from breaking open the pebbles and inducing a failure? No. Does it prevent a bomb from exploding the reactor and releasing the material? No. Are there other ways to gain fusion material beyond attacking a commercial nuclear reactor? Yes. This is a risk vs. reward equation, we will need to get power someway, and simply dismissing nuclear as "too dangerous" is ignoring the fact that when we run out of oil, the world will be a much more dangerous place anyway as everybody fights for the limited resources. Why not AVOID the political mindset that in all likely lead to the US invading Iraq in the first place by using nuclear power?
  • In China (Score:3, Funny)

    by mysterious_mark ( 577643 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @04:40PM (#11611350)
    So in China when a reactor melts down, is that referred to as the 'American Syndrome'? M
  • by radtea ( 464814 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @04:54PM (#11611547)

    The problem with nuclear power isn't the big scary scenarios that the mainstream anti-nuclear community put about. The problem is that economics suck, and probably always will. "Successful" national nuclear power programmes are propped up by artificial means--either direct government investment, or special-needs laws like the insurance liability cap, or both.

    Sure, coal plants pump out a lot more garbage into the environment than nuclear plants, but coal plants have two big advantages: relatively small events don't wind up writing-off the whole plant; and you can take the damn things apart and fix them relatively cheaply because they aren't radioactive.

    It isn't just "unreasonable regulatory burden" that makes nuclear plants expensive--it is the fact that the available energy density is extremely high, and any departure from equilibrium can result in sufficiently high energy density to result in plastic deformation of components of the core. Once that happens they're hellishly expensive to fix. Even relatively routine maintenance is extremely expensive due to the real safety requirements of doing engineering work in a radioactive environment.

    "Inherently safe" design for fission reactors is an interesting area of research, and much progress has been made, but it isn't clear that any of them are really as safe as their designers would like to believe. And again, it isn't the possibility of catastrophic, world-ending melt-down that you need to prevent, but relatively minor excursions that will leave the containment intact but make a mess of the core.

    Older designs, such as the CANDU (which has a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity, if memory serves, meaning a temperture spike will damp the reaction down) are already more-or-less "melt-down-proof". But they have also proven to be bloody expensive to maintain--far moreso than coal-fired plants run by the same utility.

    These are all reasons I got out of the nuclear engineering business many years ago--the core physics of fission power is such that it is very hard to create reactors that are going to be economic to operate over the lifecycle of the plant.

    --Tom

The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.

Working...