China launches Fuqing Nuclear Power

[Allan_L (Allan)]

Seven new nuclear power plants in China and more elsewhere show how the industry is gaining ground.

AN official launch has just been staged at Fuqing, in the southern Chinese coastal province of Fujian, for a new nuclear power station.

It will have six reactors, be completed in 2014 and have generating capacity of 6000 megawatts.

To give you some idea of how big that is, the Snowy Mountains hydro stations have a combined capacity of 3800MW.

And Fuqing is just one of seven new power plants in China that have been given the green light.

The Dutch are about to clear the way for a new plant due for completion in 2018, the foundation plate has been laid for the Leningrad II nuclear plant in Russia, and Bulgaria -- once it can get the financing -- will get two reactors off the drawing board. It also looks like the South Africans are getting back on track to commission at least one nuclear power station.
============================End of Article===============

I may be out of date with technology in the area, but aren't they just trading one form of undesirable waste with another (worse) form.

And the push in Australia to go nuclear is gaining momentum I understand as a solution to the increasing CO2 levels and the alledged consequences.

Nuclear proliferation - IMHO the greatest threat to life on the planet?

[Alchemy (Clive)]

Originally Posted by Allan_L

Nuclear proliferation - IMHO the greatest threat to life on the planet?

i reckon its just people in general.

as for nuclear waste, it is a problem we dont have an answer for; the "we will figure it out one day", is the exact same attitude that is causing the problems we have today.

im going fishing for a week and not going to get overly concerned, the world only has a short time to go with the way we are treating it, its too late IMHO

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Allan_L

And Fuqing is just one of seven new power plants in China that have been given the green light.

With a name like that one hopes it doesn't blow sky high to the seventh heaven?

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Well, IMO its the only non CO2 emiting continuos *baseline* power generation system we have that we know works. Bury the waste in a desert somewhere and keep away, not nice, but not hard. No other "alternative" source comes close.... yet. So good luck to them, we should do it too.

"Nuclear proliferation - IMHO the greatest threat to life on the planet? ", your kidding, waiting for an actual, usable, reliable, alternative will kill us faster .

[AlexN]

I'm with Fred there... Nuclear power is the only long term viable option to power the world without killing every living thing in the process... Chernobyl was a long time ago, the technology has come a hell of a long way since then... USA have been powering their continent, and armed forces with nuclear energy for quite some time, I've not heard of any explosions, radiation related illnesses etc..

And lets face it... Uranium and Plutonium were put on the planet for a reason... And if that reason is to provide clean, sustainable power.. Can't that only be seen to be far better than the idea that it was put here to create weapons of mass destruction?

[Hagar (Doug)]

Originally Posted by AlexN

And if that reason is to provide clean, sustainable power.. Can't that only be seen to be far better than the idea that it was put here to create weapons of mass destruction?

Your choice of words is way off. No one could ever call N Power clean or sustainable. No one!!!

We need to put some effort into finding alternatives which are renewable, don't rip the guts out of the country and don't render it totally unusable.
Your right on one thing and that is we don't hear of any nuclear explosions or accidents and that is correct, we don't hear about them.

Technology as it stands doesn't provide safe nuclear power generation equipment without primary, secondary and tertiary control systems which at best rely on someone like me watching over the workings and hoping all the backup systems continue to work as planned.

What we need is SAFE power systems which can handle human stuffups in their stride without killing us or the environment into the future.

Some years back we had the pleasure of hosting a couple of children from Chernoble and to see how sick these kids are and now their kids are is something we cannot risk. Cancer of all organs and blood and just to see the change in them after a few weeks in Australia with good clean food and water was amazing but it still didn't change the outcome for them all. DEATH. Plain and simple.

Nuclear power while cheap to produce still leaves an unmanagable, dangerous residue to get rid of which will outlive all of us and our children.

[scopemankit (Chris)]

The problem is, nothing is safe! Not even crossing the road.

[bojan]

The only answer is in reducing a number of people on the Planet.
And NO ONE even thinks of trying to do it. (except perhaps Chinese gov. with their "one child policy").

HUMANS are the main and only problem we are facing here.

[Lee]

I hope they build it better than their apartment buildings!

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=46679

[multiweb (Marc)]

I believe the current research in Nuclear Power is the only viable way for our future needs. Sure right now it's potentially dangerous (when people cut corners that is) and creates nasty by products that we can't get rid of or recycle but it won't alway be like that. Let's be real, burning coal or fuel is not going to last forever and sunlight is ... well just pretty, not really practical.

[Rhino1980 (Ryan)]

Inertial Confinement Fusion looks to be moving ahead, still a fair way off but looks more promising than "Tokamak" magnetic confinement methods. The biggest concern I would have with Chinese Nuclear Power generation is in the way they will dispose of the waste. They do everything the cheap and nasty way and take what ever short cuts are available. This includes of course the way they build the reactor in the first place too!

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

It would be interesting to see if Nuclear Fission power would become popular if the waste was treated in the same way that waste packaging is treated in some EU countries. The packaging is returned to the manufacture...via the supplier......yep its cut down a lot of packaging. But what if the manufacturer or in this case the SUPPLIER (eg. Australia) had to take back the waste from the product it supplies. Don't think it would be very popular with the general public then.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by [1ponders]

It would be interesting to see if Nuclear Fission power would become popular if the waste was treated in the same way that waste packaging is treated in some EU countries. The packaging is returned to the manufacture...via the supplier......yep its cut down a lot of packaging. But what if the manufacturer or in this case the SUPPLIER (eg. Australia) had to take back the waste from the product it supplies. Don't think it would be very popular with the general public then.

They actually do that in France. They've had new generation of power plants for years, now branded "super phoenix", I believe they take some of the by products of conventional nuclear plants and use it as "fuel" for the new plants but the new by products are even worse. Millions of years half life instead of 10 of thousands. But who's keeping count after the first mill.

There's a big dump zone as well in Normandy called "la hague" and they bury all the waste in lead/concrete encasements deep underground. Japan, the US, France and other countries from pretty much all over the world ship all their stuff there. It's just stored deep underground until we know what to do with it.

On a brighter note there is a lot of research in South East of France mostly financed by Japan. They think that within 100 years we WILL have clean renewable and sustainable nuclear energy. It works on the paper. What they're doing now is create the technology to make it all work. A whole city/community is being buit in "cadarache". 100s of scientist, their families, kids, infrastructure, ammenities, etc... A little "geek" town

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

I've heard very little about pebble bed reactors in recent times. They are inherently more stable, and don't use control rods to limit the reaction. They're meant to be FAR safer.

The core generates less power as its temperature rises, and therefore cannot have a criticality excursion when the machinery fails, it is power-limited or inherently self controlling due to Doppler broadening. At such low power densities, the reactor can be designed to lose more heat through its walls than it would generate. In order to generate much power it has to be cooled, and then the energy is extracted from the coolant.

Wiki: Pebble Bed Reactors - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

[astronut (John)]

China launches Fuqing Nuclear Power
Are they for real?