No Three Mile Island scares as nuclear power booms in China

[seriousstan]

Beijing plans to build new reactors at a rate of nearly two a year between now and 2020 to quadruple nuclear output to 16 billion kilowatt-hours. This could represent a reversal to an aversion to nuclear energy in many countries.

Unlike in the U.S. or Europe, where the mere mention of nuclear power is considered a political anathema, there has been no public discussion of nuclear energy. The government strictly censors its news coverage and nuclear power proponents scoff at warnings.

U.S. and other nuclear plant technology companies are lining up to sell reactors to the Chinese, whose purchasing decisions alone could decide who survives in the business. China's nine nuclear reactors now supply less than 2 percent of electricity demand. But China's power needs are so great that even assuming present plans go through, nuclear energy would still meet less than 4 percent of demand in 2020. China now gets 80 percent of its electricity from coal.

"In China we have state-owned power companies, whereas abroad they have private companies," said Yu Jiechun, an engineer at the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Co. "It's not a matter of someone's profit here."

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453395.5444444446.html

[Frangible]

1. That doesn't necessarily make it safer

Chernobyl was state-run as well. Nuclear power has its risks, and it's something you have to be very careful with, no matter who's running it.

[Bono71]

3. EVen worse with Chernyobel, the government didn't want to

admit there was a problem...only the communist officials and their families were evacuated while the rest of the population was left to rot...word of the disaster didn't spread until radiation levels rose and were detected in western European countries like Sweden.

[KamaAina]

2. Should have read "No Three Mile Island scares YET..."

two reactors a year, in a country as crowded as China...

:scared: :nuke:

This is the camel's nose under the tent. China and India combined have one-third of the world's population. As they industrialize, they'll start to use more resources, and it won't have to be at the profligate rate we do to cause serious problems worldwide.

[Igel]

4. France can do it, China can do it.

The waste is a problem, but faced with global warming, typewriters, or nuclear waste buried someplace, I think I know which I'd choose.

[MadHound]

5. Yeah, lets go with renewable energy resources

Solar, wind, biomass, biodiesel, etc. Tell you what, if you think that the nuclear waste problem is OK, go spend the next ten years in Las Vegas, and then tell me how nuke waste is OK with you.

[NickB79]

6. Nuclear waste wouldn't be a problem if we'd be smart about it

Build next-generation breeder reactors, re-fission the nuclear waste, and eventually end up with only a small fraction of unusable waste that would have to be disposed of. Our current methods of once-through fission of uranium is extremely wasteful because only a few percent of the uranium in a fuel rod is actually fissioned; the remaining 90+% is still perfectly usable. It would also increase our uranium supplies several times over, reducing overall costs of operating nuclear power plants. Solar, wind, and biomass all have their places as energy sources as well, but I'm unconvinced they could provide enough power to even supply us sufficiently now, much less in the future. The only other way to make up for solar/wind/biomass shortfalls are coal plants, and I'd take a nuclear reactor over a coal plant any day.

[Igel]

7. I'd like to know how France does it. n/t

[pointcounter]

8. How China Does It

in the road

no, seriously, check out Business 2.0 or Wired or Red Herring or some similar publication in the last year--on had a long article on China's plans and the design--it uses small balls, made in the US, as I recall