Slashdot Mirror
China Is Restarting Its Reactor Pipeline, Westinghouse Isn't Invited (technologyreview.com)
"China hasn't launched a new nuclear reactor build for over two years, but Chinese press reports that this nuclear hiatus has broken," writes Slashdot reader carbonnation. "Approvals have reportedly been made for four Hualong One reactors -- a domestic "Generation III" design -- instead of U.S.-designed AP1000s." From a report via MIT Technology Review: China's Jiemian News started the chatter on Tuesday with an exclusive interview with senior leadership of the Hualong One design's owner, Hualong International Nuclear Power Technology, a collaboration of nuclear heavyweights China General Nuclear Power (CGN) and China National Nuclear Corp. (CNNC). According to the news site, the joint venture's leaders said that two dual-reactor projects had received provisional permission to begin pouring concrete. Other publications also picked up the story yesterday, including First Financial Journal, which claimed to have confirmed the approvals through "relevant authoritative channels." CNNC and CGN have not responded to the media reports.
The reactors are slated for two new sites along China's coast: CNNC's Zhangzhou power project in Fujian and CGN's Huizhou Taipingling project in Guangdong. Both projects had been planned and approved by Chinese authorities with Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor design, which promises safety advances such as passive cooling. That means it stores water above the reactor, leveraging gravity to keep the plant cool should the pumps fail. But Westinghouse's flagship AP1000 projects have been plagued by cost overruns and delays. Those troubles may have helped the Hualong One to catch up. CNNC started building the first Hualong One reactor in 2015 at its Fuqing power plant and expects to have it operating later this year.
The reactors are slated for two new sites along China's coast: CNNC's Zhangzhou power project in Fujian and CGN's Huizhou Taipingling project in Guangdong. Both projects had been planned and approved by Chinese authorities with Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor design, which promises safety advances such as passive cooling. That means it stores water above the reactor, leveraging gravity to keep the plant cool should the pumps fail. But Westinghouse's flagship AP1000 projects have been plagued by cost overruns and delays. Those troubles may have helped the Hualong One to catch up. CNNC started building the first Hualong One reactor in 2015 at its Fuqing power plant and expects to have it operating later this year.
They should show more pride in their work
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
They will blow up, melt, and sink all the way to China!
hmm...
Nuclear is less popular in China since the movie came out "Miguó zònghé zhèng" (The America Syndrome).
So instead of building something safe by design, they're going to dick around with Rube Goldberg cooling and control systems.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
so why should China invite others for their power plants, ..?
They screwed the pooch at every opportunity with AP600/1000 and now they're out of customers. These hidebound Western companies (yes I know it was owned by Toshiba for a time; the mentality of Westinghouse wasn't improved through that change) have thoroughly purged the decision making process of any meaningful engineering contribution. Designs are driven by fantastical cost and efficiently promises that look great on paper, but no manufacturer is seriously consulted about whether building any of it is realistic prior to contracts being signed. This manifested as an outrageously large and impractical coolant pump design that took years to deliver, blew out every deadline, and squandered every last bit of good will that Westinghouse was generously provided in both the US and China.
The management and marketers of Westinghouse turned the act of pumping water into a engineering disaster and ruined the company with it. What's left of Westinghouse is now the property of some investment cabal; They'll retire the name and milk the IP and service contracts for decades.
Perhaps this is best left to the Chinese. They probably have a few decades to go before their processes are subsumed by the same bullshit that ruins the West.
I don't see the news here. They would literally be able to turn your grid off at their own discretion. It would be complete madness to buy this kind of infrastructure or mission critical equipment from a country that acts with so much malice and paranoia. Obviously, they will not buy from America.
Sucks we forgot how to build them well.
Let's hope they have studied the the Fukupshima NPP and learned something.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Since China steals the IP there is no need to have them come back. Western companies either give away their tech. or have it stolen by the chinks so there is no need for the rest of the world. Within the next 10 years you can expect to serve the Communist parties regardless of your job and country. Fools.
Like they did with the Iranian's centrifuges.
FUCK CHINA.
...word on the street is China already stole the plans so there will be some heavy-duty plagiarizing going on.
Well. The USA had two reactor companies (GE, Westinghouse). Japan had Toshiba. The UK had its carbon dioxide reactor, which was too expensive. Germany had a reactor design. Russia has its design from the Soviet days. South Korea, and France, both developed their reactors from earlier American designs. China is late to the game, but it is designing reactors.
GE exited the nuclear reactor biz a long time ago.
So, many reactor designs will get cut. France/Germany will probably get the EPR bugs fixed. Russia has been investing a lot into its nuclear industry (note the Hillary Clinton Uranium deal). China is developing its own reactor. South Korea's APR-1400 is not a giant leap in technology, but it is good. Like Ford and GM exiting the small car biz, it is likely a wise decision. The market has enough competitors.
The cost overruns in the AP1000 program are not caused by the design or the engineers. They are caused by the "oh, we want it to be this way" capricious redesigns forced upon Westinghouse by the politicians. Every -single- nightmare in that program is a result of "see, I delayed the construction of a reactor" political gamesmanship. The "cause" of "global warming" can be placed at the feet of Greenpeace (originally an anti-nuclear bomb organization - their logo is semaphore for N-D - "Nuclear Disarmament" - their original goal), but in the late 70s and early eighties, Greenpeace effectively purged every single person who could be considered nuke-power moderate, sustainable growth, or even "people have to eat" from their rolls. They were left with the "IDK" - "Industry and Development Kills" - contingent and the inmates are now running the insane asylum: one of the largest "legal" terrorist organizations in the world.
That being said: 50% of the food crops (vegetation) grown in the United States goes towards feeding livestock. Coal fired power plants are worse environmentally than nuclear (both are sources of radioactive materials, reactors just don't spew it 24/7/365). And all those wind turbine blades are non-recyclable.
We can achieve a "zero carbon" economy in one of two ways. The first is to revert to near stone age technology. Given the discoveries in science and technology I'm sure that our lives would not be nearly as poverty stricken, brutal, nasty, and short but we'd lose access to many luxuries we have today. Airplanes would be right out. People would need to resort to travel long distances by water, rail, or maybe lighter than air vessels.
If you want a modern economy that is "zero carbon" then the only solution must include nuclear power. That does not mean we cannot also include sun, wind, and hydro power, in fact ruling them out is not anything I have seen nuclear power advocates call for. What we need to do though is not shoehorn these technologies into places where they do not make economic sense. Doing that leads to poverty, and the brutal and short lives that come with it.
China could leapfrog the rest of the world on achieving a modern and "zero carbon" economy because they are investing in nuclear power while the rest of the world is not. Right now the USA gets 20% of it's electricity from nuclear power and powers many vessels in its navy by nuclear power. To remove nuclear power means replacing those nuclear reactors with something that, barring some leap in technology, will be less safe, higher CO2 emissions, and less reliable.
We cannot have both a modern economy and a "zero carbon" economy without nuclear power. I put "zero carbon" in scare quotes because I know someone will point out that nuclear power is not truly zero carbon, and they'd be right. What they ignore, or chose to remain ignorant of, is that nuclear power produces less carbon per energy produced that wind, solar, and perhaps even hydroelectric energy. What these anti-nuclear types also ignore, or chose to remain willfully ignorant of, is the long safety record of nuclear power. Even though many died from Chernobyl, and dozens died in the poorly managed (and likely unnecessary) evacuations from Fukushima, nuclear power is still far safer than any other energy source we have. Don't believe me? Look it up!
Here's one source to prove my point: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
If you dispute my source then I'm happy to provide others so long as there is a source cited that shows otherwise. Best I've seen so far is speculation on how many could die if we deployed the same 1950s technology that was used at Chernobyl or an explanation of the dangers of nuclear power with no comparisons to what might replace it. Yes, nuclear power is dangerous. Much like a republican form of government is the worst except all the others we tried we know that nuclear power is the worst except all the others we tried.
Our choices are nuclear power, keep burning coal, or reverting to near stone age in living standards. You can claim that future technology will bring another option and I can agree but for now, as of today, we have only those three choices. Until technology advances to give another option we must choose from those three. I suggest we choose nuclear power, just as China has.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
We gotta realize that they too can learn and if we teach them (how to do and thus how to think) it will be a short time till the U.S. is irrelevant, until we can outdo or out think them. Surely the U.S.is concerned with staying relevant, right? Soon, US heavy industry will be Sicilan Pizza and Large Donuts. What jobs will support the middle class? Had been progress was swapping current job for a better one.... whats the -new- plan? Make healthcare and Education cost too much?
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
We can achieve a "zero carbon" economy in one of two ways. The first is to revert to near stone age technology. Given the discoveries in science and technology I'm sure that our lives would not be nearly as poverty stricken, brutal, nasty, and short but we'd lose access to many luxuries we have today. Airplanes would be right out. People would need to resort to travel long distances by water, rail, or maybe lighter than air vessels.
You forgot the fact that without carbon/industrialization we can't feed most of the people on the planet. That will lead to lots of happy outcomes I'm sure. Other than that, spot on post. Mod parent up...without nuclear in the long run, we are done...all of us...
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
China has Patriots, NATO worships fagottery.
Also see Sodom&Gomorrea.
Other countries have tried governments that don't depend on greed and class-warfare: They're doing just fine.
The US already showed they are willing to compromise the safety of nuclear facilities. Trusting their designs seems both stupid (to trust) and arrogant (to think you would spot the backdoors/security flaws).