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."
China might actually be able to pull something like this off at a reasonable price. In the U.S. this would never get done. Between the "not in my backyard" protests, and over-regulation, the time and cost would simply be too great. Not that I like China's government, but there are certain advantages to their style.
China is showing that it is forward-thinking enough to look beyond fossil fuels for its electricity. This can only be good for the environment and global warming in particular.
I hope this reopens the nuclear power debate in the West. The USA and Europe should seriously consider comitting to new nuclear power plants for both economic and environmental reasons.
Stick Men
Isn't that what they call running a reactor without coolant until meltdown in China?
China's need for energy in the future is going to be enormous, and I'd much rather see it produced by nuclear fission than by buring coal. No matter how bad you might think nuclear power is, buring coal is even worse.
And we all know that rockets never blow up or otherwise fail on launch.
That is why we have Superman to fly the waste up and out of our atomosphere and fling them at the sun.
Not only does nuclear energy work, but it is a major source of power all over Europe. For instance, France currently generates 75% of its total power from nuclear sources (from this BBC story). Like many things, nuclear power can be a good thing if it is generated safely, and it can be very dangerous if not. The key is to be safe in how the nuclear power plant is built, operated and maintained.
These are a completely different design (which is the whole _point_) than regular reactors. Pebble bed reactors have small 'pebbles' (billiard ball-size) with little flecks (0.04", if I remember correctly) of Uranium in them - putting them in the pebbles keeps them spread apart, and makes it (dare I use the word) 'impossible' for a meltdown to occur, such as Chernobyl. There is no radioactive water or cooling rods in this design, and the pebbles are designed for a million year life, plenty of time for the radioactivity to lose its lethality, so storage of the used pebbles is _much_ easier than with current nuclear reactor waste. The university in Beijing that has been developing this has had a plant running for around ten years, with no problems, and, as mentioned, shut down the cooling system to prove that it's safe.
This is a really great development, and I hope it gets presented accurately in the press. The Wired article is very well written, though the blurb on the cover about the relationship between these plants and hydrogen is completely bogus. There is no more relationship between these plants and hydrogen than there is between any other power source and hydrogen.
The cost of disposing of waste in this manner would be prohibitive. Burying it is perfectly safe and probably cheaper by a few orders of magnitude. Lifting the Carter administration's reprocessing ban would mitigate the risk considerably as well.
Coal releases more radioactivity that nuclear power anyway.
From this article, "the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants."
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
The place which falsified QA records for years and dumped waste into the Irish Sea?
Read up on the reactor design they're using, Pebble Bed Reactors.
These are not your traditional nuclear reactors, they don't suffer from a run-away failure mode, they're designed such that even if all control rods are removed and the coolant gets shut off the increased temperature itself slows down the reaction to a stable idle - below the temperature at which the fuel or reactor melts. Ie they inherently can't blow up or go into meltdown.
Additionally the coolant used is helium, an atom that has very low neutron absorbtion, meaning in the case of a leak there is no atmospheric or groundwater contamination.
Additionlly-additionally the nuclear fuel is at a much lower density, compared to a conventional reactor, greatly simplifying refueling and disposal. Each 210 g pebble contains 9g of uranium grains, sealed inside an exetremely tough ceramic casing that doesn't burn or break - hence no radioactive dust or smoke in an accident.
These things seem very safe and very clean. My main concern will be the lack of public criticism and independant oversight in a country such as China.
Alex
I'm disappointed Australia can't get elbow-deep into nuclear technology. We've got the best disposal sites, high-yield uranium sites and the second worst rate of greenhous emissions per-capita behind the USA. We could have centres of excellence in nuclear technology in universities around the country, turn Whyalla into a boom-town by importing and disposing nuclear waste, build energy plants in the middle of the desert and export green-house-friendly energy around Asia. Yet every time anything 'nuclear' comes up people have a hysteric response against it.
:)
For more than a decade, the federal government have been unable to create low or medium-sized respositories for nuclear waste anywhere in the country. Every time the issue comes up opposition parties (including of course so-called green parties) hammer it for all its worth from the most superficial angles imaginable. Even the South Australian Liberal government got in on the act a few years ago, chanting "Not in *our* back yard" despite the middle of the Australian desert being no closer to Adelaide than high-level nuclear stores in France are to Prague.
So instead we have low-level nuclear waste scattered in sites all around the metropolitan area of several cities, which leads to situations like that of us having substantial waste stores sitting in the bottom of the university of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, both of them right next to a river. This inconsistency is one of many that shows up scum political forces who harvest stupid people's irrational fears about nuclear issues.
If Australian green politicians were genuinely passionate about our global environmental responsponsibilities they'd be comfortable with the idea of Australia as a major player in nuclear power and as a site for waste disposal.
The above opinions guarantee I would have no hope of ever making it in politics.
Believe with me, my saplings.
It depends. If the fallout grows second sets of arms on everyone, cleanup will take half as many people!
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
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.
I know a bit about Yucca Mountian. My uncle was a concrete engineer working on lining the whole damn place with spray concrete. (got some awesome pictures), and I know the guys the designed those containers to be stored there, and I also know the guys the designed the filters to trap those heavy metals, once they become water borne.
MOST of the stuff disposed there is cleanup stuff. Cloths. Rags. Containers. ***REALLY*** mundane stuff. The next biggest percentage is those filters that I mentioned earlier. Every ounce of radioactive non-volatile fluid to be buried is first run through what basically amounts to a HEPA filter for water. So, those particulates infact become solid waste. What's left of the water is boiled off, and the remnants get packaged too (mostly regular mineral deposits)
The high level wastes are encapsulated in glass or copper in such amounts that there is not enough for that material, or it's decomposited forms to cause a situation of critical mass. Lots of radioactive stuff in one spot can cause quite alot of heat, right? So they limit the quantities of high level radioactive waste to a certian amount PER CONTAINER. Fortunately, Very very very very *VERY* little of what is buried is this form of waste. Less than 20%, and maybe 2% of any given container is highly radioactive... And quite honestly, most of the stuff they treat like this does not at all really need to be treated so carefully.
If Carter's nuclear recycling ban was lifted, that 20% number could be easily dropped to 5% or probably less.
Chill friend. First off I was pointing out the insanity of someone saying we can just bury it, and the insanity that is Yucca Mountain which is basically just burying it.
Reprocessing it is a whole different and more complicated thing. The issue with reprocessing are so complicated and varied you aren't going to do it justice in a Slashdot thread.
Depending on the methods you choose you still get waste of various forms, different waste sure, but there is still a lot of waste from reprocessing. In particular you are going to get plutonium of various grades from weapons grade to plutonium suitable for fast breeder reactors. The only way you get rid of the plutonium waste in the near term is to put in bombs or burn it in reactors designed to burn it.
A key reason reprocessing has such a stigma attached to it is its historically and still is in some places used to harvest weapons grade plutonium. It is a key avenue for nuclear weapons proliferation and weapons grade plutonium is far more dangerous in the wrong hands than the waste so its not like you want every country on the planet doing it.
There is some value in the way reprocessing its being used in France, India and Japan to recycle the fuel and reuse it in fast breeder reactors but there a whole set of issues with that path two.
Pyroprocessing is the new holy grail and it might prove to be a better route than the current PUREX and UREX reprocessing but its not exactly a proven process and it a potential accident waiting to happen too.
Here is a technical brief on the methods though its written by a pro nuke group and needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
You might be able to reduce the dangerous lifespan of a of of waste to 500-1000 years, and burn some of it in reactors but to hold it out as the final solution to nuclear waste is a stretch at this point.
@de_machina
Natural uranium is only slightly radioactive. It has to by mined in huge quantities and purified to produce weapons grade uranium and reactor fuel.
Most of the waste we are talking about here isn't uranium, its plutonium and a host of other exotic metals and isotopes. Plutonium is lethal in extremely small quantities, and with reprocessing its highly sought after to produce nuclear weapons or dirty bombs. You can't just dump it back in a whole in the ground. Like most things you dump in the ground there is a high probability some of its going to end up in the ground water which people drink, and is used in agriculture to grow food for people to eat.
@de_machina
"...Realisticly this means there is no gurantee we can successfully pass the information on about where we have buried the stuff for the required length of time...."
:)
Hell, in America screwing future generations of humans is a primary operating principle...and we like it that way
> This is startlingly good news for Nevada.
> Scientists have always said that Yucca Mountain
> was a disaster-in-the-making, even leaving aside
> those 50 million Americans living within half a
> mile of the shipment routes the Yucca-bound
> nuclear waste would travel on for decades to come,
> or the 90 to 500 estimated accidents of unknown
> scale that statistics suggest would take place en
> route over the years. (Who needs terrorist dirty
> bombs when our own tax dollars can supply them?
I call FUD. Have you *seen* the containers that they've created to hold the nuclear waste? They've taken them and rammed them into walls at 80 MPH on the top of tanker trucks, dropped them on large iron spikes, fired SAM missles at them - all to no avail. Hardly made a dent in them.
These things are multi-million dollar containers that are about an order of magnitude thicker than your average tank. Given that they are going to be escorted by police and military convoys, I sincerely doubt that anything serious is going to happen.
I truly worry about the US if we let ourselves fall behind on this - misplaced anxiety is really going to do us in in the next century. I can only hope that calmer heads prevail.
horos
Geez. Another one. Please get an education in physics or read the radiation hazard page at Wikipedia. The worst part of the waste is not the one with the long half-life elements (i.e. Plutonium, Uranium). But the short half-life elements (Iodine-131, Strontium-90).
Usually the faster something decays, the more radiation it releases per unit of time. Something that takes a long time to decay is usually just somewhat warm to the touch. Like plutonium.
The ultimate proof of course, is that elements with an infinite half-life (want even higher half-life than that?) like Au-197 (plain Gold) emit zero radiation.
If you just leave the waste in a pile, it will eventually be a very pure tolerable radiation hazard uranium + plutonium mine and a very valuable resource. The shorter half-life elements will have decayed already.
Regarding Plutonium toxicity, it is way overblown. Sure it is a heavy metal, so is Lead, yet we don't get into a hissy fit about it. Last I heard, they still used Lead to make solder. You aren't going to be allowed to make plates and forks from the stuff, or have it in easily inhalable or drinkable powdered or soluble form (like they used to have in Gasoline), but as long as you use proper procedure it is not that big a deal.
Firstly: It appears we have some of the stuff wrapped in aluminium foil and aren't entirely sure where it is.
;-)
A Geiger counter might help there. If you can't detect it, you probably don't need to worry about it.
Secondly: Some of this stuff will be dangerously radioactive for longer than any form of government has been in existence for. Realisticly this means there is no gurantee we can successfully pass the information on about where we have buried the stuff for the required length of tim
So? Human-built structures have been around for longer than any form of government has been in existence for. The Egyptian pyramids, or Stonehenge, among others. Just build a pyramid on top of the stuff, with appropriate warnings about it being cursed.
Besides, there's an inverse relationship between the intensity of emitted radiation and how long that radiation lasts. Potassium (K40) is radioactive with a half-life in the billion year range, but the intensity is generally negligible. (I once read that you'll pick up more radiation from sleeping with somebody (from their K40) than you would living next to a nuclear plant, but I haven't done the math.)
-- Alastair
We have recycling and reusable goods, but its more convient to throw it in the trash. All of this trash has to go somewhere, and nobody seems to care. There's many reasons to conserve: You save money, the environment, and feel good about it. I'm not anti-science, but I feel like 95% of the crap we manufacture today is complete crap. We live in huge houses, own 4 cars per family, several TV sets and multiple computers. We've gotten all this stuff within the past century. Before that, we didn't even have electricity. Its disappointing to see that because we can spend more, we feel that we must consume more. There's a direct correlation between the two and I would like to know why.