Slashdot Mirror
China to Pioneer Melt-Down Proof Reactors
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.
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...)
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).
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...
"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.
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.
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, monstrous dam projects and now advancements in nuclear energy production.
Good for China - start investing in them now.
I'm a big tall mofo.
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)?
Not in my backyard and all that.
So you're saying, then, that it's better for our nation as a whole to have waste stored in unmonitored, insecure, and in some cases failing, storage containers and sites at over 150 locations randomly scattered around the country, indefinitely, than in one place that is at least quasi-permanent?
And why do I have to live within visual distance of a nuclear power plant to (correctly) say that it's a very compelling answer to our power problems? Possibly because nuclear power has been so vilified by some people that others are irrationally deathly afraid of it?
Your argument is extremely poor, because:
1.) It's based on "non in my backyard", and,
2.) You make a fallacious argument that living closer to a power plant somehow makes one more able to comment about nuclear power.
The fact is, the city where I live doesn't have a nuclear power plant. Frankly, I wish it did.
Good job using nothing more than scare tactics to frame your argument. Why, exactly, would it be bad to live close to one of the 104 operating nuclear plants in the United States?
Because of irrational fear and nothing more?
Or perhaps we should eliminate nuclear power altogether! I'm sure that would help us down the road to solving our energy problems!
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).
@de_machina
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.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
Americans, 5% of global population, produce over 30% of the output on 20% of the energy. We're very productive, and very efficient, compared with most of the rest of the world - vastly more efficient than any comparably sized group in either of those three measures. Of course, we're too wasteful, too - our economy hides the cost of our energy consumption. When we reduce our energy consumption, our economy will benefit, and lead the rest of the world to a more sustainable production system. But trashtalking our relative efficiency isn't the way to lead us there.
--
make install -not war
You think just the same way that Timothy McVeigh used to on Usenet. I thought he was a dangerous nut before he murdered close to 300 people in his attempt to do exactly what you suggest. Try a google search and look for his posts on Usenet.
Bin Laden and McVeigh are both cut from the same cloth. The most powerful tool you have for changing your government is the Web.
Bin Laden has changed nothing, achieved nothing. The IRA achieved nothing. Mao and Stalin ultimately achieved nothing.
Ghandi won India's freedom without a shot being fired. Lech Walensa in Poland, the Velvet, Rose revolutions, far more is achieved with the power of speech than has ever been achieved with guns.
The East Germans I met in the 1980s never asked for guns, they wanted photocopiers and type writers. They knew what they needed.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The "too cheap to meter" comment is addressed later in the comments, and was from one guy talking to a group of science-fiction writers in the 1950's. But yes, a real nuclear scientist said it, so I'll give you that.
On the other hand, in the U.S. Nuclear Reactors have killed how many civilians? So far as I know, the number of civilians killed in nuclear accidents at power plants is... zero. Yes, there have been deaths of workers, yes, you could argue that a few plants have leaked radiation here and there, but when you consider that the CDC is claiming 30,000 deaths a year from coal plants in the U.S., it makes for a hell of a weak argument.
Besides, the "safe" claim isn't even being made by the U.S. government, it's coming from China. As for me, I think nuclear is a great idea, and I'd rather be living 10 miles from Yucca Mountain than the 10 miles I currently live away from a coal plant that's rated one of the cleanest in America.
As for your "dirty bomb" statement, yeah, give it a try. Start by walking into a nuclear power plant, past the six layers of security. Then enter the core, ignoring the fatal dose of radiation you'll be bathed in. Grab hold of a few dozen pebbles, ignoring the heat that burns the flesh off your hands and arms. Take them home. Grind them up, again, ignore the fact that the fumes of the uranium or plutonium are among the most powerful and fastest acting poisons known to man. Use fluorine (a controlled substance also instantly fatal if breathed) to create UF6 to separate the Uranium from the graphite gas. Then use a million dollars of platinum to catylize the UF6 back to uranium metal. Stick it to 100 pounds of C4 and detonate it in downtown New York. Of course, the fact that you'll set off every airborne neutron detector that homeland security and the air force (and a half-dozen spy satellites) have before you leave your house might slow you down. Not to mention the continous man-hunt looking to find you.
You may not trust the government with this stuff, but consider the alternative. If there's one thing I'm not worried about in this country, it's how well our fissile material stockpile is guarded. When you realize that it takes three semis, twenty secret-service agents, the FBI and the army to move 20 grams of *spent* material to be used as the thermal warmers for the Pathfinder rover, you realize that the government is very serious about the security of this material.
story from "Managing Martians" by Donna Shirley
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.