Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
China Power

China Slows Nuclear Expansion 78

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the secretly-invented-fusion dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Slows Nuclear Expansion

Comments Filter:
  • 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.
    • 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.

      • by rtb61 (674572)

        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 bl

      • by dbIII (701233)
        So where is there an operating G4 reactor then?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    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 pr

  • Do any of their new reactors use thorium?

  • 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."

  • by crovira (10242) on Wednesday April 24, 2013 @01:00PM (#43538169) Homepage

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • 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.

      • by crovira (10242)

        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.

  • by TheSync (5291) on Wednesday April 24, 2013 @01:04PM (#43538197) Journal

    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.

  • by PvtVoid (1252388) on Wednesday April 24, 2013 @01:23PM (#43538375)
    ...then we're all fucked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w26WMRstQUk [youtube.com]
  • 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?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

panic: kernel trap (ignored)

Working...