NEWS: Official: China Plans 40 Nuke Power Plants

China is planning the construction of forty nuclear power plants by the year 2020. Officials assert that the nuclear power plants will become the "pillar of energy" in the eastern coastal regions of China. Equipment suppliers are viewing this decision as a boon for their industry, as no new plants are being planned for the US or Western Europe.



As an acquaintance once said to me, "Nuclear power is one heck of a way to boil water." It does the job of pretty efficiently, but the cost effectiveness has been called into question in light of the rampant cost overruns that plagued most, if not all, of the plants built in the US. The Three Mile Island and Chernobyl events should also be remembered as examples of how disastrous a malfunction can be at a nuclear power plant.

The most distressing aspect perhaps is what to do with all that radioactive waste. Well, their putting it in the ground here in New Mexico and it will be millennia before those areas will be safe.

I guess there's no stopping the proliferation of nuclear power plants in a world "hungry for power," but one has to wonder just what the long term effect is going to be when we have millions of tons of radioactive material buried almost everywhere.

Related News Links:
www.cnsnews.com
www.greenfutures.org.uk
www.thejournalnews.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Past Space Nuclear Power System Accidents
New Nuclear Power Plants
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 05/4/7 by GradyPhilpott]

Question: Couldn't you say that China's ambitions are the same as Iran's?
And if they are, will the US also oppose their goals? Or is it because China already has nuclear weapons, that no opposition will be made?

This is good news, hopefully it will help take some pressure off of oil prices and help the environment as well.

China is already a nuclear power and is not constrained in their use of nuclear power, WW.

That's a good question, worldwatcher. I guess it remains to be seen what the official reaction will be, but, as you said, China is already a nuclear power and beyond that they are also a very fertile and expanding market and a growing part of the global economy.

One other consideration is that China is one of our chief competitors for petroleum and if nuclear power reduces their need for petroleum products it could be important for stabilizing prices at time when supplies will be diminishing.

Oh well another step for China in becoming economically more powerful.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
Question: Couldn't you say that China's ambitions are the same as Iran's?
And if they are, will the US also oppose their goals? Or is it because China already has nuclear weapons, that no opposition will be made?

You mean the (unproved) ambitions of Iran to have nuclear weapons? Well, the Chinese already have nukes. Regarding your next question I doubt if they (the Chinese) have a certain ambition that the US can do anything to prevent them realizing it.

Blobber

Japan and France produce a major fraction of their energy on nuclear plants.

If China burns loads of coal to meet its energy needs, this would be much worse anyway, as the pollution and greenhouse gases are global.

And yes, they will produce nukes along the way.

The nuclear energy that the Chinese will be establishing will consist of new technology that WILL NOT have the cooling system requirements as with the nuclear power plants of U.S.
They will achieve 78% higher energy levels with 1/100th required cooling system.
Their nuclear power plants will be exactly 1/20th the size of the nuclear power plant located in Crystal River, Florida.

I believe this is old news. If this is the same news I've heard before, then I know that they're building pebble-bed reactors, which are amongst the most advanced and safest reactors out there. It's pretty much impossible for these things to go critical, and blow up. I'm very much in favor of using these new fission reactors for power, and hope that the US will start using them. I think they're the most environmentally friendly power-plants I've seen.

I'm not worried that they'll use these for weapons because they already have nuclear weapons.

Fact of the matter is it is "NEW" news for the technology they are going to be using has just finished 20 year research on it in U.S. and has been away from any NRC and DOE access or control.
The U.S. government HAS NOT SEEN any part of project!
A 100% private company in U.S. has developed the system they will be using and the first airring on the subject will be coming from U.K. not U.S. by television production company. The files have been tighter than anything, even more than anything even things they claim AREA 51, Langley, NASA or "BlackProjects" or skunkworks might have.



[edit on 7-4-2005 by drrdw]

[edit on 7-4-2005 by drrdw]

Don't the pebble bed reactors use fuel encased in graphite balls? From what I can remember a pebble bed would be very hard to use to make nukes with.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
As an acquaintance once said to me, "Nuclear power is one heck of a way to boil water."
[edit on 05/4/7 by GradyPhilpott]

My sentiments exactly. I suspect there are a significant number of people who don't realise that a nuclear power station is an over engineered kettle. They probably believe that the electricity comes "out" of the nuclear fuel directly. The so called "cheap" electricity it generates is nothing of the sort. As usual they conveniently ignore de-commisioning costs and the long term storage costs. Not forgetting of course the uncostable environmental issues.

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
As an acquaintance once said to me, "Nuclear power is one heck of a way to boil water."
[edit on 05/4/7 by GradyPhilpott]

My sentiments exactly. I suspect there are a significant number of people who don't realise that a nuclear power station is an over engineered kettle. They probably believe that the electricity comes "out" of the nuclear fuel directly. The so called "cheap" electricity it generates is nothing of the sort. As usual they conveniently ignore de-commisioning costs and the long term storage costs. Not forgetting of course the uncostable environmental issues.

But is there anything as efficient and as clean? Solar and wind would be great if they could actually produce power efficiently. Geothermal isnt cost effective. Hydro is probably the next closest thing. Nuclear power would be great if it wasnt for the NIMBY people. Hopefully soon nuclear energy advocates will be able to convince people that nuclear is safe. I mean, when was the last serious nuclear accident? Almost 20 years ago, and the only 2 i could find since then were in japan:

Sept. 30, 1999, Tokaimura, Japan: uncontrolled chain reaction in a uranium-processing nuclear fuel plant spewed high levels of radioactive gas into the air, killing two workers and seriously injuring one other.

Aug. 9, 2004, Mihama, Japan: non-radioactive steam leaked from a nuclear power plant, killing four workers and severely burning seven others.

source: www.factmonster.com...

I bet you could find similiar happenings at non-nuclear plants. It also didnt say how old either plant was, or what the conditions were like.

Personally i would like to see replacement of coal and oil plants with nuclear facilities, but ONLY with very strict government regulations and inspections, maybe even fully public facilities instead of private facilities so that there wouldnt be the extra level were corruption could occur. I would not want to see an inspector paid off to allow a dangerous plant to keep operating.

Six people have died from accidents in nuclear power plants within the last twenty years? That's nothing compared to the number that have died from the pollution spewed by coal and oil plants. Does anyone have any statistics on the number that have died directly from accidents within the last twenty years? I'm willing to bet that those numbers are higher than six.

man why can't htye use somthing like wind power,solar or some sort of alternative energy why some many nuclear power plants there just waiting to be bombareded by terriosts

Originally posted by lepracornman
man why can't htye use somthing like wind power,solar or some sort of alternative energy why some many nuclear power plants there just waiting to be bombareded by terriosts

Did you not read my post? They're building pebble-bed reactors which make going critical pretty much impossible.

Oh, one more thing, these reactors don't use water, and so aren't over-engineered kettles. In lieu of water, they use inert or semi-inert gases at very high temperatures to turn the turbines.