×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Next-Gen Nuclear Power Plant Breaks Ground In China

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the plenty-safe-bye-now-call-later dept.

Power 426

An anonymous reader writes "The construction of first next-generation Westinghouse nuclear power reactor breaks ground in Sanmen, China. The reactor, expected to generate 12.7 Megawatts by 2013, costs 40 billion Yuan (~US$6 billion; that's a lot of iPods.) According to Westinghouse, 'The AP1000 is the safest and most economical nuclear power plant available in the worldwide commercial marketplace, and is the only Generation III+ reactor to receive Design Certification from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.' However, Chinese netizens suspect China is being used as a white rat to test unproven nuclear technologies (comments in Chinese)." Update: 04/20 07:28 GMT by T : As several readers have pointed out, this plant will generate much more than 12.7 Megawatts -- more like 1100 MWe.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

426 comments

Fun with acronyms. (1, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642223)

Nexr-Gen Nuclear Power Plant

Is "Nexr" either an acronym or abbreviation for something I should be aware of, or is this a "typo in title" case?

Re:Fun with acronyms. (1, Interesting)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642235)

It is an abbreviation you are not aware of. I am not aware of it before but I am now.

Re:Fun with acronyms. (4, Funny)

jae471 (1102461) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642239)

Either way, people may want to consider getting on the nexr plane out of China...

In all seriousness, 12.7 MW seems rather small for a $6 billion price tag.

Re:Fun with acronyms. (2, Informative)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642251)

Either way, people may want to consider getting on the nexr plane out of China...

Hope they've got all their paperwork in order; from what I understand, simply leaving can prove problematic for those folks.

Re:Fun with acronyms. (0)

setagllib (753300) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642255)

If the extra price is for safety and efficiency, it's probably well worth it. It could quickly pay for itself in savings and avoided liabilities.

Re:Fun with acronyms. (3, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642271)

Please name all historical liabilities incurred in the entire history of nuclear power generation, with specific dates, and provide a comparison to the net power generated and cost savings over time. Thanks.

Re:Fun with acronyms. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642319)

Please do your own damn history homework.

Re:Fun with acronyms. (-1, Flamebait)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642391)

Good AC post. You've utterly failed to prove your point, and you're only reinforcing mine regarding nuclear power's overwhelmingly positive track record on safety when viewed over the long term. Nice job. School starts in a few hours, you don't want to be late for the bus.

Re:Fun with acronyms. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642329)

Just wait for Italy to switch nuclear. Just wait...

Re:Fun with acronyms. (4, Insightful)

bitrex (859228) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642519)

Three Mile Island. Three Mile Island. Three Mile Island. That's the only one you have to know, because it's the name that's been repeating in the minds of potential private investors in US nuclear power for over 30 years. Investors don't give a crap about cost savings or net power generation - at least directly, what they want to know first and foremost is what their chances are of making guaranteed bank over the life of the plant are. Investing in coal and oil is a sure-fire 100% money maker. Nuclear might be an even bigger money maker, 99% of the time, but... Three Mile Island, Three Mile Island, Three Mile Island...

Re:Fun with acronyms. (4, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642743)

Three Mile Island. Three Mile Island. Three Mile Island. That's the only one you have to know

TMI's operator's insurance company payed out US$40M in lawsuits. Not much, even in 1980 dollars.

Re:Fun with acronyms. (1)

bitrex (859228) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642981)

As the only group willing to insure the nuclear industry is the nuclear industry, that's not surprising - I assume the majority of the full ~$1 billion cleanup cost was finally footed by the US taxpayer. Regardless of what limits to indemnity there were, however, I doubt investors viewed a nuclear plant that's completely shut down for the better part of 6 years for cleanup as a sound investment.

Re:Fun with acronyms. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642311)

But it could be built fast, I asked my friend if we should build one and he said when he got time. According to their webpage build time was 36 months so I figured with us two building it we should be done in 1.5 year!

Re:Power Output (3, Informative)

DrKnark (1536431) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642345)

Either way, people may want to consider getting on the nexr plane out of China...

In all seriousness, 12.7 MW seems rather small for a $6 billion price tag.

The AP1000 produces 1150 MWe (megawatts electric). The 12.7 MW figure is either wrong or has to do with the start-up phase.

Re:Fun with acronyms. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642265)

The grammar/spelling nazis, racist trolls, and the suprisingly angry partisans from both sides of nuclear power are going to have a field day with this. Also there's also a good chance that global warming will come up here, and I'm pretty sure the chinese are running vista on the control system.

Re:Fun with acronyms. (4, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642277)

Fool, they're not running Vista on the control system. They're running a pirated copy of the Windows 7 beta. Get it straight.

12 megawatts? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642225)

Sorry, but that's a joke. Even a modest nuclear plant can generate 200+. Stupid Chinese people, can only produce crap that breaks after 20 minutes of use.

Re:12 megawatts? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642249)

It's actually 1100 MWs [mediaroom.com]:

An 1100MWe design that is ideal for providing baseload generating capacity

I don't know where the submitter came up with his number.

Re:12 megawatts? (3, Funny)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642325)

12 MW, 1200 MW, big deal.

Re:12 megawatts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642635)

must be the submitter had some trouble converting chinese-numbers to american-numbers...

Re:12 megawatts? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642275)

Y'know, that troll works a lot better when the product in question isn't designed by an American outfit owned by the Japanese.

Re:12 megawatts? (1)

DrKnark (1536431) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642371)

The AP1000 (which is plant they are building) produces 1150 MW. I don't know where the 12 MW figure comes from, but it is incorrect.

Typo in title (0, Offtopic)

incognito84 (903401) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642227)

"Nexr-Gen" Tsk tsk tsk.

Re:Typo in title (0, Redundant)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642243)

It should read:

Nelxr-Glen Nucewar Powler Prant Bleaks Glound Ern China

Re:Typo in title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642687)

Not to be a nit-pick but i berieve it's Shayné because it was founded by the Flench.

(pronounced "Shine"+"A" [pronounce defines are hard on slashdot] and that's supposed to be an "e" with an apostrophe like the one you would see in the word "fiance"...)

Firsr Posr (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642231)

woohoo! FirsRRRRRRR!!!

Units? (5, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642253)

12.7 MW sounds a bit low. Even a DeLorean could generate 1.21 GW.

But seriously, my home entertainment center uses more than that. Well, OK, not so seriously. But still, I'm just sayin.

Re:Units? (1)

maharb (1534501) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642309)

With all the errors I suspect it was translated to English by someone who isn't quite qualified.

Re:Units? (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642331)

1.21GW?

Tsar Bomba generated about 5.4 yottawatts (5.4*10^24 Watts) of power! Now that's what I call 'powerful'.

Re:Units? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642335)

Indeed, the summary seems to pull "12.7 Megawatts" out of thin air. The article states "1100MW" which is 1.1 Gigawatts, exactly what you'd expect from a large nuclear plant.

Re:Units? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642703)

It is very unusual to just build one reactor in a modern nuclear plant. If there is a problem in the only reactor, you loose all your output. Also, you can save a lot of overhead by having more reactors in one site. So most plants at least have two reactors of roughly the same design. A single-unit plant would also not justify a $6-billion pricetag.

A modern high-capacity PWR delivers somewhere between 0.8 and 1.3 GWe per unit. Anything below 300 MWe would probably also not be economically viable.

If it is 12.7 GWe, then there will probably be around 12 reactors on that same site. It would equal or outperform the original designs of Chernobyl (which had 10 or 12 units planned (depending on the source), all around 1-1.5 GWe per unit) and it would be larger than the current largest site in Japan (which is currently largely off-line due to earthquake damage), delivering a max. of about 8 GWe.

If that is the case, the $6 billion price tag is not very high.

Re:Units? (2, Informative)

lotho brandybuck (720697) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642407)

Yeah, the press release says 1100 MWe... (Megawatts electrical) So the summary is a little off.

The astounding thing to me is just how expensive this is... 6 billion for 1100MW is almost $6/nameplate watt.

$6 billion will buy a lot of Honda generators..

Re:Units? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642445)

Yeah, but in turn it is green. It doesn't generate CO2:-)

Re:Units? (3, Insightful)

wildsurf (535389) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642537)

The astounding thing to me is just how expensive this is... 6 billion for 1100MW is almost $6/nameplate watt.

From a related article [xinhuanet.com]:

The Sanmen Nuclear Power Plant will be built in three phases, with an investment of more than 40 billion yuan (5.88 billion U.S. dollars) injected in the first phase.
The first phase project will include two units each with a generating capacity of 1.25 million kw.

So it appears that the real cost is closer to 5.88 / (2 * 1.25) = $2.35 per watt. Still expensive, but not outlandish. I'm in the process of installing a 4kw grid of solar panels on my own roof for a cost (after subsidies/rebates) of $17k, so $4.25 / watt. For greener energy, I think the premium is worth it.

Re:Units? (5, Insightful)

Beriaru (954082) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642737)

I'm in the process of installing a 4kw grid of solar panels on my own roof for a cost (after subsidies/rebates) of $17k, so $4.25 / watt. For greener energy, I think the premium is worth it.

$4.25/Watt-peak, not Watt. It's not the same.

Also, the Nuke power plant gives 1.2gW constant. Day and night. Sunny or rainy.

Not quite a good comparison.

Re:Units? (4, Informative)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642795)

solar panels on my own roof ... For greener energy, I think the premium is worth it.

Except for all the lead, mercury and cadmium needed to produce PV cells.

Re:Units? (1)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642863)

Not to mention the horrendously high energy needed to reduce sand to silicon in the first place, and the inefficient purification processes (which are improving a lot at the moment).

Re:Units? (0)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642933)

Not to mention ...

And the fact that whereas we use electricity 24x7, PVs are only useful during the daytime, and only operate at peak efficiency when they are new and on cloudless days, and lose a good amount of that efficiency after 5 years.

Steam (whether heated by nuke, coal or gas) generator plants, OTOH, work at peak efficiency for decades, 24x365, with over-capacity so that they can still generate their rated power even when some equipment is off-line for maintenance.

Also: electronics and electric motors need a relatively constant voltage and frequency, and sadly, solar and wind just can't do that. They can only ever "smooth out the peaks". Even then, electric companies need to plan capacity as if solar and wind generators don't exist, because people still need electricity during snow storms or when the wind doesn't blow.

Re:Units? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642965)

So if people pay 20 cents per KW/h it takes 5.88*10^9$ / 1,250,000 * 0.20$ = 23520 h. to break even (not including upkeep of course) - so about 3 years, and with a running time of some 30-40 years you are looking at a nice turnover.

China vs US nuke policy (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642461)

I had to laugh when a Chinese visitor recently said to me:
"I see you're going back to the windmill in Britain. We Chinese cannot afford that."

Re:Units? (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642547)

But the DeLorean had a flux capacitor, there is no comparison in this. It's like comparing an apple with an apple from the 18th century.

Re:Units? (1)

fractalVisionz (989785) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642813)

Even a DeLorean could generate 1.21 GW.

Unfortunately, the DeLorean wins, as 1100MW is only 1.1 Gigawatts. They need a flux capacitor to help liven things up to surpass 1.21 GW. Speaking of which, a nuclear symbol almost looks like a flux capacitor. Coincidence?

Summary error? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642273)

Where is the 12.7 Megawatts coming from? thats actually a pretty small amount of electricity when your talking about a "power plant"

According to the linked Westinghouse site the AP1000 is "1154 MWe" which is almost a 100 times that.

Spell check, anyone? Bueller? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642283)

As if it's not bad enough that the summary of about 50% of /. articles seem to have NOTHING to do with the actual story being posted about, now they can't be bothered to at least proofread the goddamned headline. Come ON, people!

Does Steve Jobs know... (2, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642315)

(~US$6 billion; that's a lot of iPods.)

That iPods have become an international currency? Maybe I should cash out my collection of iPods...

Re:Does Steve Jobs know... (2, Funny)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642353)

Only if you bought them in China and then sold them in America or EU. Otherwise, you will lose money.

Re:Does Steve Jobs know... (1)

Overkill Nbuta (1035654) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642403)

It seems everyone week Slashdot finds a new measurement of units.

Libary's Of Congress, Ipods. I am sure theres some I have missed.

Re:Does Steve Jobs know... (3, Funny)

bitrex (859228) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642597)

1.21 Jigawatts is equal to approximately 47,000 mega ExplodingIpodBatteries, which is about 7.8 Burning Libraries Of Congress. These units of energy are of course in the US standard micro-10-fully-loaded-18-wheelers^2*milli-footballfield^2*deci-time-it-takes-you-to-fix-a-cup-of-coffee^-2.

Re:Does Steve Jobs know... (2, Informative)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642871)

That's not actually as silly as it sounds, though I believe the Big Mac is more traditional. [wikipedia.org]

Really you need to price it in iPods-bought-in-China. This can then be converted back to whichever local currency used, to give some idea of the cost taking into account purchasing power parity (i.e. $1 in China still goes further than $1 in the US and $1 in the UK can barely buy a packet of crisps these days).

Re:Does Steve Jobs know... (1)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642935)

So, an iPod touch bought in China is going to set you back RMB1998yuan, according to my poor Mandarin and Apple's China site. This gives about 20E6 iPods Touch for total plant cost.

Converted into local currency;
US$229*20E6=$4.58b
GBP169*20E6=£3.3b=$4.86b
EUR219*20E6=â4.38b=$5.69b*

Note that this back-of-the-envelope calculation doesn't take into account taxes.

*Taken from www.apple.com/de

No! (2, Interesting)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642321)

... suspect China is being used as a white rat ...

By now everyone should know it's the rats that are using us (or the Chinese in this case).

Western Nuclear Technology is Safe (0, Offtopic)

reporter (666905) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642629)

Western nuclear technology is safe, for if it were not safe, then anyone harmed by it can sue the manufacturer for restitution.

Such is not the case with Chinese nuclear technology. Read a shocking report [timesonline.co.uk] about what happened to the victims maimed by Chinese nuclear experiments.

According to "The TimesOnline", "The nuclear test grounds in the wastes of the Gobi desert have fallen silent but veterans of those lonely places are speaking out for the first time about the terrible price exacted by China's zealous pursuit of the atomic bomb.

They talk of picking up radioactive debris with their bare hands, of sluicing down bombers that had flown through mushroom clouds, of soldiers dying before their time of strange and rare diseases, and children born with mysterious cancers.

These were the men and women of Unit 8023, a special detachment charged with conducting atomic tests at Lop Nur in Xinjiang province, a place of utter desolation and - until now - complete secrecy.

'I was a member of Unit 8023 for 23 years,' said one old soldier in an interview. 'My job was to go into the blast zone to retrieve test objects and monitoring equipment after the explosion.

'When my daughter was born she was diagnosed with a huge tumour on her spinal cord. The doctors blame nuclear fallout. She's had two major operations and has lived a life of indescribable hardship. And all we get from the government is 130 yuan [£13] a month.'"

Re:Western Nuclear Technology is Safe (3, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642783)

Surely you realize the difference between a civilian nuclear power program and a crash nuclear weapons development project? IIRC, every nation which has developed nukes has similar stories of abuse and malfeasance by top officials.

Re:Western Nuclear Technology is Safe (2, Interesting)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642829)

crash nuclear weapons development project? IIRC, every nation which has developed nukes has similar stories of abuse and malfeasance by top officials.

Except the irresponsible waste handling at Cold War manufacturing plants Hanford, Oak Ridge, etc weren't part a crash project. They were just criminally cheap bastards who couldn't see 5cm beyond their noses.

Re:Western Nuclear Technology is Safe (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642999)

Except the irresponsible waste handling at Cold War manufacturing plants Hanford, Oak Ridge, etc weren't part a crash project. They were just criminally cheap bastards who couldn't see 5cm beyond their noses.

All that was part of the Manhattan Project which was the original crash project. And the hustling continued for decades afterwards due to the nuclear arms race with the USSR.

Re:Western Nuclear Technology is Safe (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642993)

You might not be familiar with the long running court case between Australian veterans and the British Government over the exactly the same treatment. Soldiers got a pretty raw deal during nuclear tests.

12.7 Megawatts? (1)

FrankDrebin (238464) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642343)

I've crawled around a number of hydroelectric generators, from 1 MW to 300 MW; a 1 MW turbine "runner" is about the size of a truck tire. There is simply no way anyone would spend billions on a dozen of those.

And the math doesn't work either. At $100 per MWh, a 12 MW generator would have to run for about 5 million hours to earn $6B. TFA says 1100 MW, which is more like it.

Re:12.7 Megawatts? (3, Interesting)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642455)

The brochure web page for the AP1000 [westinghousenuclear.com] also says much the same thing, 1154MWe.

It also states that this is a Pressurized Water Reactor, so it's probably more about generating by-products (esp. tritium) than it is about generating energy.

If you don't want to be part of the test (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642377)

So people think they are being used as test subjects because they are getting an approved and new system.
In that case, maybe they should wait till they can find a plant that's been running flawlessly for a century.

All humor aside, there is no way to 100% test something as large, expensive, and complex as a powerplant until it's been built, and used for a significant amount of time. Not to mention surviving several unexpected disasters.

So if you don't want to be part of the test, you might be able to avoid it by going back to the time before the Industrial Revolution.

Re:If you don't want to be part of the test (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642641)

So if you don't want to be part of the test, you might be able to avoid it by going back to the time before the Industrial Revolution.

Is this new, groundbreaking prototipe, time machine!

WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642387)

Anyone else's title cut off? This is what I see:

An anonymous reader writes
"The construction of first next-generation Westinghouse nuclear power reactor breaks ground in Sanmen, China. The reactor, expected to generate 12.7 Megawatts by 2013, costs 40 billion Yuan (~US$6 billion; that's a lot of iPods.) According to Westinghouse, 'The AP1000 is the

end

Re:WTF? (2, Funny)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642467)

Don't worry, given the usual quality of slashdot summaries, cutting them in half is probably an improvement.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642499)

Summarizer doesn't have a short attention span, no sir. I mean how could you even think that? The article is absolutely

The AP-1000 reactor isn't a "next generation" unit (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642395)

The AP-1000 isn't a new technology reactor. That's the whole point. It's a conventional pressurized-water reactor. It's built mostly from existing Westinghouse components which Westinghouse had type-approved by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, so that multiple identical units could be built without going through a full design review for each one. So far, nobody has ordered one. Until now.

Most US reactors are unique designs, which is a headache. France has 34 reactors of the same design, which has cost and maintenance advantages, although there's been at least one common design flaw found.

Westinghouse is no longer a US company. It's owned by Toshiba.

McMansion - powerplants (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642799)

In the last few months, I moved to a "McMansion" neighborhood. You know, upscale homes made en-mass with your choice of 4 shades of beige and 4 floor plans, which are really 2 floor plans but mirrored left-to-right.

At first, I thought that I'd hate it. But I love it!

The homes are spacious, comfortable, and stylish. The yards are small but pretty, and easily manicured with an electric lawn mower. The floor plan is just EXCELLENT with all the details thought through.

There's alot to be said for doing a single design very, very well and replicating it.

Slashdot has been assimilated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642405)

Slashdot is pulling Microsoft now. The first couple dozen posts is like MS service pack - part troll (virus), part correction (bug fixes).

iPods? WTH? (5, Funny)

NilObject (522433) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642459)

Since when did iPods become a unit of measurement?

"That kid was hit by a 2-ton truck. That's a lot of iPods!"

Perhaps 3 orders of magnitude more power (2, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642473)

I'm guessing it's about 12 GW rather than MW. Nuclear plants' power is usually in the order of (a few) gigawatts.

If this is, indeed, a 12 GW power plant, it's one of the largest I've heard of.

Re:Perhaps 3 orders of magnitude more power (1)

wilsoniya (902930) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642685)

According to Wikipedia:

8.21 GW - tech: capacity of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant, the largest nuclear power plant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power)#gigawatt_.28109_watts.29 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Perhaps 3 orders of magnitude more power (1)

biggknifeparty (618904) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642821)

Which just went back online this spring, after a few years of tests after the large offshore (but very close by) Chuetsu earthquake a couple years back.

The numbers are all wrong.. (4, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642507)

It's a 1.2GW plant. The current order is for four reactors, for 8 billion dollars. The price is expected to fall to about 1 billion per reactor. China has a goal of building 100 reactors by 2020. IF the USA built that many, it would cut power plant greenhouse gas emissions by 30%, or the equivalent of nearly a million windmills.

Re:The numbers are all wrong.. (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642567)

And China's per capita CO2 emissions were already about 1/4 of those in the US - even though so much of the heavy industry supporting us occurs there. Now we're losing our last excuse to avoid doing anything about our C02 pollution, which was pointing the finger.

Re:The numbers are all wrong.. (2, Interesting)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642835)

>>And China's per capita CO2 emissions were already about 1/4 of those in the US

Having a large percentage of your population living in abject poverty will do that for 'ya.

I don't recommend copying their strategy in that regard.

Re:The numbers are all wrong.. (1)

Zoxed (676559) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642605)

> IF the USA built that many, it would cut power plant greenhouse gas emissions by 30%,

Any references for that ? Does that figure include emissions related to uranium mining, enrichment, plant building/decommissioning and long term storage of waste ?

Just wondering...

Re:The numbers are all wrong.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642909)

mining, enrichment, plant building/decommissioning

Theoretically, with such cheap electricity, all those could be performed by electric-powered vehicles.

Re:The numbers are all wrong.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642673)

Yes, and if the US continues to do nothing about AGW other than spread FUD about China "not pulling their weight" then in 2020 the US may find all their imports/exports hit with carbon tarrifs.

Re:The numbers are all wrong.. (2, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642967)

Yes, and if the US continues to do nothing about AGW other than spread FUD about China "not pulling their weight" then in 2020 the US may find all their imports/exports hit with carbon tarrifs.

Who would do that? Europe doesn't have the guts and I doubt China will be interested. India probably will continue to be worse off than the US is as far as producing CO2. And the Middle East isn't going to be remotely interested in killing their sole export. That doesn't leave much.

That's a lot of iPods (2, Insightful)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642587)

What, money is measured in iPods now? Maybe its output should also be measured in iPods it can power instead of megawatts?

Re:That's a lot of iPods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27642979)

Good idea. 132 MegaMinutes playtime of Beyonce's All The Single Ladies.

Huh? (1)

Mathness (145187) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642659)

... (comments in Chinese)

I thought this was an English based forum. Have Slashdot been bought by a Chinese company?

closed secret government (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642701)

netizens suspect China is being used as a white rat to test unproven nuclear technologies (comments in Chinese)."

This is what happens when you have a closed government: people go wild with conspiracy theories. Happens in America too.....I knew people who seriously believed Bush was going to call martial law and cancel the last election.

Of course, who knows, maybe it is an experimental power station. But given that it is a standard design, I find it highly unlikely. Just like moon landing hoax theories are extremely unlikely. Open government is important.

Ah cool (5, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642753)

I just gave a briefing to one of the engineers at this power plant a few weeks ago. Interesting place! It's sort of out in the middle of nowhere, at least as a far as coastal China goes. It's about an hour and a half from here, and the place would never have been built anywhere in the West. There is a Western psuedo-religion that automatically opposes anything with the word "atoms" in the name...it really retards progress. It's the sort of thing that really stands out in relief after you've been out of America for a while and gotten used to the sanity of daily Chinese life. It's really cool when you have a relationship with the guy who grows your vegetables, AND he's just a regular guy, not some psuedo-religious neogardener.

Architect 101 (1)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642841)

They should have built a proper base first. Place solid concrete slabs before building nuclear power plant. Maybe then their ground would still be intact. Stupid chinese.

Very unfortunate... (0, Redundant)

tsvk (624784) | more than 4 years ago | (#27642959)

"Next-Gen Nuclear Power Plant Breaks Ground In China"

Oh no, that is very unfortunate, I'm sad to hear about the breakage.

Do they yet know how much ground has been broken? Is it severely broken?

I suspect that this has been caused by the atomic radiation from the power plant.

Let's hope that the Chinese can get that ground fixed, they need all the space they need as there are so many of them.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...