Beta
×

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!

China Slows Nuclear Expansion

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the secretly-invented-fusion dept.

China 78

An anonymous reader writes "Hui Zhang and Shangui Zhao describe China's decision to move ahead with nuclear power. Following the Fukushima Daiichi accident, China slowed its rapid expansion of nuclear power and undertook a major reevaluation of safety practices. The government has now resumed approval of new nuclear power projects, and is cautiously moving forward. Good description of safety issues that remain." They are suspending in-land construction, and are aiming at 58GWe instead of 80GWe of generation capacity by 2020. It's still more than the 40GWe they planned to build under their 2007 plans.

cancel ×

78 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Let's hope the US (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43536735)

suspends the legal avenues of protesting/delaying construction projects in the near future. Throw the NIMBYs in jail, whatever charges are needed, and then the USA can be as forwarding thinking as China. Then Americans can bask in praise.

NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43536997)

why American civilian infrastructure is like the 3rd world comparing to China and Japan.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43537149)

Totally False.

The real reason is lack of interest. No nuclear power plant has been built without government funds or loans. The payback time is long and the returns relatively low. There really has no been a big commercial push for building these power plants. Natural gas on the other hand has seen lots of private growth.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43537405)

That's true everywhere. There's lack of interest in China as well, since no private entity has taken up the enterprise. The issue therefore lies in whether NIMBYs are given the middle finger or allowed to have their hissyfits. One country doesn't play nice with civilian protest, and is making progress, so it would be rational for countries that still play nice to change and follow this proven path to progress. What's a few cracked skulls compared to creating a more robust infrastructure and a stronger less dependent nation?

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43537523)

Totally False.
            There is plenty of interest. The legal hurdles are the real issue. Most of the nuclear industry is now focused on expansion and improvement of existing plants because it's a lot harder for Greenpeace and the like to get people worked up over something that's already been running without a problem in their back yard for several decades.
          Nuclear does have a high up-front cost, but it is the only truly viable solution to reducing emissions at this point.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43537841)

Interest doesn't equal intent. The financial situation just doesn't make sense for nuclear (at present). Given the (artificially, temporary) low prices of natural gas and the relatively inexpensive and rapid timeline of a natural gas fired electrical generation plant AND the increasingly favorable costs for wind / solar conventional nucs just aren't a hot item. Especially since the 'new and improved' Gen III plants don't exist in the US just yet so it's a bit of a stretch to call up Westinghouse and ask for a tour (want to fly to Beijing?).

Let's face it, current LWR technology just hasn't worked out all that well. Turns out it's expensive to build and maintain. They're insanely complex. Impossible to insure (unless the feds step in). Covered by tons of regulations (would you want it any other way given human avarice and greed?). Enormous capital expenditures. Basically they got outcompeted. Yeah, free market?!$&#*&>.

Now, lets move forward a decade or so. Westinghouse and the French company (I want to say 'Avarice' but that's not it) are working on Gen III reactors being sited in China. IF (big if) they pull it off, get a couple of years of installing them and running them without major issues AND natural gas prices climb (again - follow The Oil Drum or similar sites, tl;dr the depletion rate of fracked natural gas wells [theoildrum.com] is truly enormous) and nobody figures out a reasonable strategy to turn solar power into baseload power, THEN nuclear might have a chance.

All they would have to do is figure out the the little problem of waste storage.

Certainly, much of nuclear power's issues are political rather than technical in nature but politics is "the art of the possible". If we were rational creatures, Mr. Spock would be President for Life and we'd have flying cars.

But we're not. So we can't have nice things.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43538541)

If you put the NRC in charge of natural gas, wind, solar, or coal they would be equally cost prohibitive. Mission Accomplished.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (2)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#43538855)

Why would you call the low price of natural gas "artificial"? The supply recently went up hugely, and demand has been flat at best through the economic downturn. Temporary, sure - all commodity prices are temporary.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#43543285)

Westinghouse could show you the subscale prototype they build in the US the AP600. But if you want to see the larger models yeah you will probably have to go to China since the US reactors are taking forever to get approved in order to get built. The problem is not necessarily the Federal government. Usually it is local politics which get in the way.

China so far does not have a whole lot of natural gas capacity. Most of it is dirty coal. This is getting to be a problem in the major cities, with people using masks in order to breathe the air, so they are using nuclear generation to improve air quality there. With the move to Generation III reactors they are having trouble ramping up capacity and teaching personnel to use the reactors. This was already expected. So I do not understand those trying to spin this as China backpedaling on nuclear. It is anything but. Those living inland will just have to keep using coal and have a reduced quality of life and lifetime as a result. Why? Because coal is cheap and who care about inland peasants anyway.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year ago | (#43541415)

Other countries that switch to wind and solar disproove your argument ...
Everything that does not emmit CO2 is an alternative.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#43543299)

Those countries have had as a result increased electricity costs. Energy intensive businesses leaving. In the case of Germany they put a tax on the nuclear reactors to fund the windmills and then they claim nuclear isn't competitive. Hah.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year ago | (#43545625)

There is no tax on nuclear reactors.
There is a tax on nuclear fuel elements. Which is used to pay for the storsge of used elements and for decommisioning old plants.
Wind energy is funded by fixed feed in rates into the grid, not by taxes or subsidies.
Energy costs increased slightly but will drop again when the switch is finished.
As germans use only a quarter of the energy an american is using, no one really cares about the price increase. For me it was recent years about 10â per year in total, less than one euro per month.
If the nuclear energy producers would have (had have) to pay for the nuclear plants/the nuclear waste/and decomissioning of old plants, the nuclear energy would never have been competetive anyway. The cost for the taxpayer makes nuclear energy 4 - 10 times as expensive as e.g. coal or wind.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#43549991)

You may call it whatever you want it is still a tax [euobserver.com] . Germany is facing a "bright" future burning low quality brown coal. I would rather have nuclear and improved air quality thank you. If they had the same criteria of zero emissions for coal power plants they wouldn't be competitive either.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year ago | (#43550635)

You are very missinformed.
It is very bad to draw conclusions from wrong assumptions.

Why do you think brown coal pollutes the air? Because you don't know anything about how german coal plants work :) However, you can google for it I believe ... good luck!

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#43572411)

I know one person who grew up next to one of your clean power generators and got respiratory problems as a result. You are the one who needs to get informed about brown coal. Even with scrubbers installed in the plant the air quality is still going to be low. The fact is even when you are burning decent quality coal, like in the US, so called clean coal technologies are more expensive than nuclear. Brown coal does not even qualify for that.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year ago | (#43573033)

In germany the exhaust of a coal plant is cleaner than the air it takes in ... thechnically it is no difference for the scrubbers if you buen black coal or brown coal :)

Re: Costs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43538085)

The payback isn't that small, actually. The famous example in Canada is Darlington for incredible cost overruns (from incredibly bad financing) of 14.4 Billion in the early 90s has more than made up for it, and the profit it generates yearly is enormous. The problem is that 90% of the costs are all upfront and pre-power generation, the inverse of fossil-fuel methods. If you are a Keynes follower, you should build these in recessions, since as infrastructure investment there is a large payback, and in prosperity, since it will smooth out future rough spots. If you are a Chigaco/Austrian-school follower, you never build these since you are in austerity during bad times and other investments have better (ie: faster, inflation tracked) return in good times. Basically, the economics are either excellent or terrible based on which camp you follow and how shortsighted your goals are, and how cost effective nuclear actually is is determined almost entirely in how it is financed.

Re: Costs (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43538889)

If you are a Keynes follower, you should build these in recessions

The problem is that for economic stimulus you want to start spending serious money as soon as possible, and not wait years for the planning of a plant. Of course, considering how long the economy has been in the toilet, that might not be an issue nowadays.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

steelfood (895457) | about a year ago | (#43538827)

Totally False.

The strict regulations put in place in the late 70's-early 80's right after the Three Mile Island incident made it practically impossible to build new nuclear power plants. The regulations dealt with more than just structural and engineering requirements. There were also societal requirements like having comprehensive evacuation plans for all nearby populated areas.

The reason those strict regulations were put in place were because of state and local governments freaking out about having a nuclear power plant near them right after the accident. Basically, NIMBY.

The existing ones have since only remained running with exemptions from the federal government.

There is, in fact a huge commercial demand for cheap, clean nuclear energy. There's just no place any company could put one down.

As for natural gas, the reason why that's so popular right now is because there are no regulations against fracking. It's stupid-cheap to produce, and so everybody's using it.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43540295)

There were also societal requirements like having comprehensive evacuation plans for all nearby populated areas.

How ridiculous. No one has ever needed to evacuate from around a nuclear power plant, right?

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#43543309)

Nor from a fertilizer plant using ammonia right? Or from a natural gas pipeline blowing up for that matter.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43537725)

In the case of nukes, NIMBY sometimes makes sense. It should be practical to evacuate the area around a nuke - it's not like it's never been necessary or a wise precaution. Building in an area that's insanely difficult or slow to evacuate, like the old Shoreham, NY plant, is insane. Nor is there any practical reason to do so. They ship GigaWatts of power with little loss from Hydro-Quebec to other parts of Canada and the US, or from the Northwest to LA. The only reason to build near densely populated areas is because utilities have a limited geographic charter. That's a political/economic issue that can be dealt with.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43537891)

It's the size of peoples' back yards in the case of nukes that make it not work. "Storing nuclear waste? Not in my entire state!!!" goes a little far.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43537985)

Just relocate the residents, give them fair market price for their property.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43538833)

Just relocate the residents, give them fair market price for their property.

What do you think the fair market price is for the homes and businesses of say, one million people, in an expensive part of the country? There's an outside chance that it might be cheaper to put the nuke elsewhere. And my point was that anything within a few hundred miles (if not further) works just fine.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | about a year ago | (#43538939)

"Fair Market Price" is not a concern for the federal government.

This is why:

*************

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112 [cornell.edu]

31 USC Â 5112 - Denominations, specifications, and design of coins

(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretaryâ(TM)s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

***************

So let say the fair market price for those land is $1 trillion, just mint a 1-ounce coin with $1 trillion denomination on it and give it to the group. It is legal tender. Case closed.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539679)

And the entire global economy takes a shit, because so much of the other currencies are backed or based on the USD in some way; and by doing the coin trick you've convinced every bank and person holding a bunch of dollars that there's a madman behind the wheel, dropping its value immensely.

Great way to start WWIII, that.

Re:NIMBY are the sole reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43540901)

The only reason to build near densely populated areas is because utilities have a limited geographic charter. That's a political/economic issue that can be dealt with.

Better to just evacuate everyone and put wind farms there.

Re:Let's hope the US (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43537067)

Why is it off-topic to mention the US? I thought that's always on topic.

Misread tiltle (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43536739)

"China Shows Nuclear Explosion" wait. what ?

Re:Misread tiltle (2)

gQuigs (913879) | about a year ago | (#43536803)

I also read that and was worried North Korea (*) had attacked them... but thought the wording was a bit weird.

* Maybe they feel like China backstabbed them for not supporting them in the recent "confrontation".

Re:Misread tiltle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43536983)

You were worried that North Korea had attacked China....

Please reply with further geopolitical analysis regarding whatever topic you feel appropriate.

Re:Misread tiltle (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#43537143)

Please reply with further geopolitical analysis regarding whatever topic you feel appropriate.

All your base belong to us!

Re:Misread tiltle (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43537889)

Please reply with further geopolitical analysis regarding whatever topic you feel appropriate.

All your base belong to us!

No, no. To be on topic you have to say:

"All your base load belong to us!"

That works, scarily enough.

Re:Misread tiltle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43538723)

NK keeps almost as much of their military on the Yalu River as they do on their side of the DMZ. There's no trust lost in that relationship.

First Radioactive Post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43536759)

Good for the Chinese. It will soon be easier to detect illegal Chinese immigrants, once they start to glow in the dark.

Once we get the first real AP1000 (1, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43536797)

Once we get the first running AP1000 maybe people will no longer pretend that that next generation is perfect in every way and we can get some sane discussions with real numbers.

Re:Once we get the first real AP1000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43537163)

People still exaggerate the number of deaths from the Chernobyl disaster, despite it being well documented.
What makes you think we will get a sane discussion from experience?

Re:Once we get the first real AP1000 (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43537251)

I would say that the AP1000 is really a G3.5 reactor, not G4. It's a pretty incremental development over existing ones.

That said, the existing ones are proven and well tested designs, and it does seem to fix the more major flaws.

Re:Once we get the first real AP1000 (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year ago | (#43538369)

The major flaw in China is of course greed and corruption. Taking insane short cuts to inflate profits and paying of officials meant to be checking work is the norm. You only have to look at high speed rail failures in China to have proof of corruption in spite of definitive consequences of failure. So it will be interesting to see how the government of China will contract out Nuclear power station construction. There are a huge number of alternative designs from low power turbine reactors to high power bleeder reactors, still greed will promote corruption which will produce failure.

The you have Israeli and US governments screwing around with viruses to specifically attack nuclear facilities as back door attacks. Apparently no one is safe from corporate cheating when it comes to management of reactors, from Japan to the US, greed has created terrible consequences. So much promise and so much greed driven stupidity to make it fail.

Re:Once we get the first real AP1000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43538811)

There are no existing Gen 3+ reacators; the AP1000 will be the first one actually built. However the first AP1000s, the ones in Sanmen, aren't scheduled to come online until later this year. I did some consulting work for Westinghouse during the whole Fukushima event and was quite fortunate to get a tour of this facility by the EVP; we even went inside the containment unit of the second reactor a few months before the pressure vessel was installed and sealed; it was pretty cool.

I personally have a lot of faith in the AP1000. It's passive cooling system works in all models including a small mockup of it's predecessor, the AP600, although no one's seen it in action yet. However, assuming it does work, an AP1000 would have withstood the earthquake that wiped out Fukushima, because the main issue with there was the tsunami created by the earthquake that knocked out all the outside diesel gensets. Those gensets are there for one purpose, to pump water through the cooling system in the event of an emergency so the core can be cooled at a controlled pace. When they got wiped, the core melted in a few hours and the responders had no time to get in and resolve the problem. Per the design specs, the AP1000 can passively cool the core for up to 3 days without outside assistance, which gives an emergency response team the time to get new gensets in and power the secondary cooling pumps for a longer period. In talking with their engineers, assuming the system works as designed and per the models they discussed, this increases the safety of the system 100 fold. The only major concern is if the area is so heavily damaged of if the containment vessel is breached, but the containment vessel is designed to withstand a 9.5 earthquake (Fukushima was a 9.1).

Seismic Engineers Wanted (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43539889)

the containment vessel is designed to withstand a 9.5 earthquake (Fukushima was a 9.1)

I wonder what that means in engineering terms. The Richter (actually moment magnitude scale) measures the total energy released in the quake, but what matters for structural design is the peak ground acceleration [wikipedia.org] and the peak ground velocity [wikipedia.org] . The chart on the PGA page shows a remarkable lack of correlation between MMS and PGA. The highest energy quake ever recorded (9.5 Chile 1960) had a PGA of only 0.3g, where the 2011 Thoku earthquake that caused the Fukushima accident was 2.7g. The 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake was a 7.2 that had a vector sum PGA of 4.36g.

Re:Seismic Engineers Wanted (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43563897)

They are apparently getting pretty good at designing for it in Japan.
Ground roll can be huge - in the San Francisco quake witnesses saw the street rising up in waves that they could see coming a dozen blocks away. The amplitude must have been several metres for that to happen - it's not just acceleration to worry about but displacement as well, and that's hard to design for (it's done for oil pipelines, for instance the S bend in an Alaskan pipeline over the Denali fault, but harder for more complex things). In other words shutting down and arranging things so that cracking is not such a big deal (like the bunds around oil storage tanks so a leak is not a big deal) may be the best option. In other words design to fail gracefully instead of hoping to remain intact and having major consequences on failure.

Re:Once we get the first real AP1000 (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year ago | (#43541355)

The Fukushima quake (wrong choosen name imho) was not 9.1.
It was 9.1 or 9.2 at the point where the quake happend. And that was about 400 miles out in the sea to the north east.
At Fukushima, the town, or the reactor if you want to call it so, the quake was perhaps 4 or 5. (Perhaps. you recall that the town was not harmed at all by the quake, and perhaps you know that nuclear reactors are only considere 'quake resilent' to roughly 6.5. It pisses me pretty off thatpeople think/repeat the myth a reactor can withstand a 9.1/9.2 quake. I really doubt any human build structure could do that ... )

Re:Once we get the first real AP1000 (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43541915)

So where is there an operating G4 reactor then?

Re:Once we get the first real AP1000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539139)

I love when solutions are based on vaporware.

Safety-first? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43536907)

Gee Safety-first huh? Guess that Safety-first was on their mind when they built train lines and then when they derailed, buried the train, corpses and all.

As much as I'd like to believe the Chinese government won't screw this up, History has shown that the Chinese will cut corners or steal trade secrets from foreign companies to build domestic versions of things. This really really really should not happen with Nuclear technology.

A Chernobyl-like incident(reactor core explosion) is far more likely the result of bad reactor design, while a TMI/Fukushima-like accident(loss of coolant, reactor core meltdown) is more likely to happen due to shortcuts taken during operation, which IMO is far more likely to happen given how often Chinese are willing to risk the lives of their own people to make a buck.

Re:Safety-first? (2)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about a year ago | (#43536995)

I agree, the fall out (no pun intended) of such an explosion in China will be felt the world over. The deaths alone from a failure will be astronomical. While I'm not opposed to nuclear power, I'm opposed to people doing it wrong.

Re:Safety-first? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43537947)

Is it me or the TFA encouraging them to fuck up?

For the new safety standards to be effective, China should streamline the regulatory and legal framework governing nuclear power.

So to make it safer they should... get rid of safety standards and checks? Um...

Re:Safety-first? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43537955)

But, But ...

They said they were going to do it right

The second plan approved by the State Council, the Twelfth Five-Year Plan and the 2020 Vision of Nuclear Safety and Radioactive Pollution Prevention -- the Nuclear Safety Plan, for short -- goes farther. It requires that all operating reactors maintain good safety records and avoid accidents. New reactors must put in place prevention and mitigation measures for severe accidents.

The wrote it down. They put it on the Internet. What else could they need to do?

Re:Safety-first? (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43537557)

Mod parent up. Whether you or not you like or agree w/ the PP, it's not flamebait or a troll, and doesn't deserve -1. When I use my mod points, I never mod things to -1 unless they're flamebait or a troll.

Re:Safety-first? (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43537581)

Safety-first was on [China's] mind when they built train lines and then when they derailed, buried the train, corpses and all.

Cite?

Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43536911)

According to TFA the 80GW number was ''expected'' by experts and officials. Only 40GW was written into the plans. Now the plans have 58GW. The planned capacity has increased, contrary to the summary.

Much more important thing is that Chinese are actually looking seriously into safety. Another fuck-up after the Fukushima disaster would seal the fate of nuclear electricity generation, and consequently, the last hopes that we'd do something substantial with regards to climate change. The outcome would not be pretty.

Re:Good (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about a year ago | (#43537009)

Yeah, as usual the titles on Slashdot suck.

good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43536973)

If this improves their air quality, I'm all for it.

Thorium? (1)

hendrikboom (1001110) | about a year ago | (#43537039)

Do any of their new reactors use thorium?

Re:Thorium? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43537079)

Of course not, piss off with your thorium nuttery.

Re:Thorium? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43538125)

Not a fan of breeder reactors? Maybe you should abstain from breeding too.

Re:Thorium? (1)

greg_barton (5551) | about a year ago | (#43537369)

AFAIK the Chinese MSR test reactor is still going forward. No recent news to the contrary.

Re:Thorium? (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year ago | (#43537449)

go to the last video here:
http://thoriumremix.com/2012/ [thoriumremix.com]

There is some thorium mentioned but I could not stand to watch the whole presentation.

Waiting on the EPR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43537205)

I have doubts about Chinese nuclear reactor construction. They have been building two EPR reactors, and have not found major faults, like the one in Finland, and France. France will find, and fix the EPR flaws. I wish they were faster at it.

So, pile on the coal then? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year ago | (#43537341)

Good job that's not in the slightest bit radioactive then [google.com] .

If nuclear adopted the same attitude that coal has always had, then reactor leaks would be result in a shrug and a response of "So what, you can't see it, so it can't hurt you."

Out of coal - nuclear is only answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43538661)

China will burn through all their coal reserves within about 25 years.

About 50% of world coal production and burning happens in China. 3,500,000,000 tons of coal per year.

And yes, China has 3rd largest coal reserves in the world.

China is trying to wean itself off coal hence their plan for 400+ nuclear reactors by 2050. As 2050, they plan on building all reactors as fast neutrons, thus no longer requiring much external fuel. They will just be able to reprocess "waste" for fuel.

PS. You don't due from "coal radioactivity". Coal is much more deadly in other ways than radioactivity, be that soot, smog or even geopolitical tensions coming soon (50+years) as result of global warming.

I for won (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43537505)

I for one, welcome our three-headed comrade overlords.

Safety and china? HAHAHAHA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43537627)

"China slowed its rapid expansion of nuclear power and undertook a major reevaluation of safety practices."

That's so fucking hiliarious. China has been the worst for shipping toxic toys and food and god knows what else around the world for how many decades now? Especially pet food that had melamine in it and killed thousands if not tens of thousands or more pets around the world.

Stop asking accountants and ask mining engineers, (4, Interesting)

crovira (10242) | about a year ago | (#43538169)

stop building nuclear power plants out in the open air and bury the damn things half a kilometer underground.

Takes care of explosions. (Even if it blows up, get your people out before it blows, seal the shaft and who cares?)
Takes care of terrorist attacks. (The terrorists are NOT going to dig half kilometer long tunnels to get to your fissiles.)
Takes care of leakage. (Its half a kilometer down so its not going in your water table.)
Takes care of waste disposal. (You just dig a bunch of side chambers.)
Takes care of expansion. (You just dig a bunch of side chambers.)
Takes care of exposure. (It never sees the light of day, it never gets above ground.)

You can build the cooling towers, the power distribution towers and the offices above ground but BURY all the rest way down deep.

Re:Stop asking accountants and ask mining engineer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43538869)

Sounds holybajesusexpensive

Re:Stop asking accountants and ask mining engineer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43541025)

This has actually already been considered, but was shot down due to possible ground water contamination and steam explosions. That and the sheer complexity of analyzing ground structure as far as would be necessary for the NRC's satisfaction.

It is MUCH easier to build a practically impenetrable containment dome with defense in depth than it is to bury a reactor in a shaft. However, for small modular reactors, underground is totally the way to go. Can't do it with current commercial sized reactors as they just generate too much heat and waste, but small modular reactors would be fine if they're unable to melt through their containment and contaminate ground water.

Re:Stop asking accountants and ask mining engineer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43541595)

lol.
slashdot reporting any story regarding engineering brings out the most inane drivel. a failure in the tertiary pressure boundary would result in a severe casualty, not to mention the absolutely bizarre and needless expense of such an undertaking. the expense of creating the largest deeply buried structure ever created as a housing for a device designed to provide cheap power, and already costs several billion dollars... simply moronic.

Re:Stop asking accountants and ask mining engineer (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#43542297)

Or just drill all the way to the mantle to create your own source of geo-thermal power. Pump water in, out comes steam. And if causes a massive volcanic eruption, you now have a nice place to dispose of all your e-waste. Can't go wrong.

Re:Stop asking accountants and ask mining engineer (1)

crovira (10242) | about a year ago | (#43542393)

Industrial scale geothermal works fine where the crust is thin. (Hawaii, Iceland, Japan, Yellowstone etc.)

Solar would be used in places where there is lots of sun to melt salt. (Like death valley, Saskatchewan, the Sahara desert, most of the middle east, the Gobi desert, the Atacama desert.)

Nuclear could/should/would be only used where the crust is too thick or where a source of water is problematic.

Totally biased source (2, Informative)

TheSync (5291) | about a year ago | (#43538197)

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists [wikipedia.org] is anti-nuclear.

Read about the plans for new nuclear reactors [world-nuclear.org] worldwide.

Over 60 power reactors are currently being constructed in 14 countries including China, South Korea and Russia.

Mainland China [world-nuclear.org] has 17 nuclear power reactors in operation, 28 under construction, and more about to start construction. Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a five- or six-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020, then possibly 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050.

58GWe? (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#43542701)

I understand GWe is electrical GWh. If so, 58 GWh seems low: as a comparison, France produce more than 400 TWh from nuclear power plants. Is there an error here?

Re:58GWe? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544245)

GWe is GW electrical, (not GWh electrical)
58GW x 24h/d x 365d = 508080GWh = 500 TWh
But French 400TWh is high considering the population size.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>