backtop


Print 90 comment(s) - last by luceri.. on Apr 28 at 9:50 AM


A rendering of the AP1000 reactor by Westinghouse  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Prospective workers train in China to become operators at the world's first AP1000 reactor, an advanced Generation III+ reactor design by Westinghouse. The U.S. has several applications for the new reactor type pending, but with construction already started on the Chinese plant, China will almost certainly beat the U.S. to become the first to build the new reactor.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
While adoption in the U.S. still languishes, China's nuclear power is flourishing

One of the biggest controversies in the environmental community is the topic of nuclear power.  Some see it as the best short-term hope for clean, affordable alternative energy.  Others are fearful of the waste that is associated with older reactor designs.  Despite modern reactor designs recycling much of the spent fuel and being built with safer designs, these fears remain. 

The net result is that despite a couple pending applications, the U.S. is stuck with aging nuclear reactions, which indeed play to critics worst fears -- lacking much of the safety and waste recycling of modern designs.

Elsewhere, though, times are kind to the nuclear industry.  China, in particular is looking to join France and Japan in providing a large portion of its power from nuclear energy.  The nation, which currently relies heavily on coal power, is including nuclear development in a diverse program which also includes massive solar and wind power growth.

Concrete was just poured at the site of a new reactor in Sanmen, China, built by the Westinghouse Electric Company, The Shaw Group Inc., China's State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation, and the Sanmen Nuclear Power Company of China National Nuclear Corporation.  The reactor will be the first of four 1,100 MWe reactors built.

The new reactor, the Westinghouse AP1000, is an extremely advanced design which focuses on modularity and automation, as well as safety and optimum fuel use.  It is classed as a Generation III+ reactor and is the only such reactor to receive Design Certification from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

In total, the four reactor project will cost the nation approximately $8B USD.  However, it will put them in a position of nuclear leadership, with no other nation currently employing this reactor design, the latest from Westinghouse.  Westinghouse President and CEO Aris Candris states, "Completion of concrete pour is a major milestone that visibly moves the Sanmen project from the design and discussion stage to the construction stage.  More importantly, by getting this project underway on schedule, we are further helping to ensure that baseload electricity generation will begin at this plant as intended in 2013."

Some Chinese feel less than comfortable about the new reactor, though, stating that their country's people are being used as test rats for unproven designs (source in Chinese).  Regardless, construction appears geared to continue as planned.

The U.S., despite strong opposition, in coming years may roll out an even more advanced reactor design, with Georgia Power Company reaching an agreement late last year to construct two Revision 16 reactors in Vogtle, Georgia.  There are, in total, twelve such pending Combined Construction and Operating Licenses (COLs) filed for, though the go ahead from government regulators still remains.  The proposed plans may have to survive heavy legal pressure from anti-nuclear groups if they hope to advance.  Thus the status of the U.S.'s nuclear future remains significantly more questionable of that of China.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Mick
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/20/2009 4:16:13 PM , Rating: 5
Shhhh... don't tell anyone ;o)

Just trying to put the issue out there and let people discuss it as they see fit.

I think overall there are some worthwhile concerns about nuclear, but I think sticking to aging nuclear like the U.S. is doing is far worse than either adopting modern nuclear or turning to other alternative energy sources. By casting a blind eye, it certainly seems like the U.S. is choosing the *worst* option , falling behind its competitors technologically, losing a potential energy source, and retaining aging, polluting, designs that are more vulnerable to both digital and physical attacks.

Nuclear skeptics have got to realize-- even if you oppose nuclear power, its here NOW -- you could build three or more modern plants and keep the U.S.'s waste production constant, all while multiplying the energy output of the U.S. and reducing fossil fuel reliance.

I consider myself middle-of-the-road when it comes to nuclear power opinion, but I feel this argument is too persuasive to deny.


RE: Mick
By Whedonic on 4/20/2009 6:27:22 PM , Rating: 2
Hear hear!


RE: Mick
By TA152H on 4/21/2009 2:17:44 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, but we don't have Belgium or Germany to build our nuclear plants next to, in case they blow up. We could put them on the Atlantic, but what fun is that?

I'm for nuclear power, but I sure as Hell wouldn't want one near where I live. I still remember Three Mile Island, and so do a lot of people. People aren't purely intellectual, and although I might know they are relatively safe, the idea of them being in near proximity to where I live leaves me cold.

Of course, I have nothing against putting them in New Jersey, which seems very natural to me. This way you really don't have to worry about disposing of the wastes. They're home.

Another good idea is to invade Canada, and put nukes up there. They'd be easy to beat, and it would simplify negotiations for the automakers. Also, I think we could pass Russia for largest country in the world, and maybe even coldest too. And it would help with our missile shield against, cough, Iran. We could also avoid using Cuba for torture - just put them in Canada in January (or February, or March, or April, or May, etc...) and they'll be talking (and frost bitten) in no time.

Obama doesn't have the hair on his back to do it, but maybe Hillary Clinton can talk him into it. After all, if he's going to make friends with our enemies, he's got to balance it out by invading our so called "friends".

The only negatives would be the new states would all be competing to wear the honor of being "The Grizzly State". It is catchy.

I


RE: Mick
By FishTankX on 4/21/2009 6:58:49 AM , Rating: 3
I think fearing nuclear power because of TMI is much like the department of energy refusing to buy pentium based supercomputers because of the FDIV bug.


RE: Mick
By TA152H on 4/21/2009 2:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
Really, as with most simplifications, you're wrong.

There are safer alternatives to energy than nuclear power, that pose less risk. Nukes are very cheap though, and better then some sources of power we use, I think we can agree on that.

However, the FDIV bug didn't kill people. It was easily verified, and fixed. There's no chance it still exists. None. It can be tested. Now, your next argument is that there are other bugs on Core processors, but then that ignores the difference mentioned in the first paragraph. Is there a safer way of doing mathematics? Can we be sure an Athlon is more accurate? Clearly, no. So, you can't really take a safer approach with your floating point divisions, but you can with energy sources.

Still, I think the dangers presented by coal and such are much greater than nukes. I would not want to live near a coal plant, that's for sure, and if you put a gun to my head, I'd probably choose the nukes over it. Hopefully oil prices will go up again, and truly clean sources of energy will take off again. They're still growing, but they're losing a bit of impetus with the lower oil prices. Nukes too. Clearly, where there are existing nukes, replacing them with a more efficient nuke is nothing but a positive. You'd have lower risks, better efficiency, and more energy production. I don't see how anyone could argue with that, or placing more plants in New Jersey, where they really belong.


RE: Mick
By jRaskell on 4/21/2009 1:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
I would have absolutely no problem living near a modern nuclear plant. I'd definitely prefer that over living near any type of coal plant.

Claiming you're 'for nuclear power', but 'sure as Hell wouldn't want one near where I live' is the perfect definition of hypocrite.


RE: Mick
By TA152H on 4/21/2009 2:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you missed the point.

I was pointing out that while one's intellectual side might know something isn't likely to be dangerous, our emotional side sometimes wins out. Sometimes the opposite is true. It's built in, otherwise we'd never marry :-P .

I'm in full agreement about coal plants. But, I wouldn't mind wind farms, or solar plants, or geothermal plants near where I live. Nukes? No, thanks. I don't really trust our government so much when it comes to radiation, they have a bad track record. They even told soldiers depleted uranium wasn't dangerous. Fool me once ...

But, if it helps any, I have no problem with them building nuclear power plants where you live. So, we agree on that part. Do you live in New Jersey?


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki