Slashdot Mirror


China Goes Nuclear

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."

13 of 1,058 comments (clear)

  1. Nuclear energy works! by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hope that China can help show the world what a viable source of clean energy nuclear power really is. The "danger" stigmatism that is attached to it is rediculous. The worst nuclear disaster in history, Cherynobl, killed a total of 3,000 people. That includes long term deaths attributed to radiation poisoning and increased cancer rates. Coal mining on the other hand kills around 30,000 people every year in mining accidents alone. Not to mention the pollution and enviromental damage that coal power plants generate. As for the nuclear waste generated aftewards there are a number of clever idea's about how to deal with it including one which disposes of it in the giant fusion reaction that is our Sun.

    Que unfounded paranoia

    warning : sig contains ad you may not like, but i'll give you a gmail account if you sign up ;-)

    --

    "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
    1. Re:Nuclear energy works! by ikegami · · 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.

  2. Nice by GypC · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Nice by Neophytus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I read a statistic once. Had we been able to harness all the uranium released from burning coal for fuel since 1970 and created reactor grade material, we could have created approx. the same amount of electricity as the coal burning itself.

  3. this is a very good thing by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the antinuclear crowd doesn't seem to understand how advanced nuclear technology is today

    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

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  4. Better than what they do now... by dykofone · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I did some work designing steam turbines for power plants, and one of our main customers was China. They were hitting an industrial boom and needed power like crazy, and also happened to have ridiculous amounts of coal. Problem was, this coal was considered poor quality because of the large amounts of sulfur, so it wasn't fit for exportation. Instead, they bought a bunch of 30 year old inefficient turbines and would pretty much throw the shitty coal out of the ground and into the burner.

    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.

  5. Like the Sellafield reprocessing plant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The place which falsified QA records for years and dumped waste into the Irish Sea?

  6. How about supergun or space elevator? by Dr_Marvin_Monroe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I keep hearing stories about the Japanese working on some type of orbital projectile launcher, same type of thing Gerald Bull was working on before his untimely death. I don't know if they are true, but this would provide a safe way of getting non-human cargo to orbit without the risk of explosion. Encased blocks of radioactive waste could be shot to orbit, then nudged towards the sun by an orbiting sat.

    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.

    1. Re:How about supergun or space elevator? by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm all for the "get it off the earth" idea, but why is everyone so dead set on sending it into the Sun?
      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.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
  7. REALITY by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We can't live without it at this time.

    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.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  8. Re:Communism is good for something by globalar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    OT, but China is not so much communism as authoritarianism. Yes, the communist party is in control and yes the propoganda is alive. But communism implies more than simply a government - it's a social structure.

    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.

  9. The Canadian Shield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You can bury it in the Canadian Shield. They've studied it and 10,000 years is miniscule compared to how stable that is. Solid granite for thousands of meters. Drill, Drop, fill it in. It won't go anywhere for eons.

    1. Re:The Canadian Shield by demachina · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Does any of the Canadian Shield extend in to the U.S.?

      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.

      --
      @de_machina