China Plans to Build 150 Nuclear Plants to Meet Their Energy Needs

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s

China’s Climate Goals Hinge on a $440 Billion Nuclear Buildout

China is planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35.

That will also help them build up to 1,000 planned nuclear warheads that are planned. RCW

 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s

China’s Climate Goals Hinge on a $440 Billion Nuclear Buildout

China is planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35.

That will also help them build up to 1,000 planned nuclear warheads that are planned. RCW

 

Jealous?

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

So China's 150 reactor nuclear buildout will cost half as much as Germany's Energiewende and will generate 10 times as much power?

Sounds good to me

Edited November 4, 2021 by Sebastian Meana

[Starschy + 211]

I hold this Bloomberg Story for nonsens. 40 Powerstation Imay believe but not that number. There is by far not enough Uran available. And Australia forget it. There are not enough qualified Chinese specialists available for that Job.

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

4 minutes ago, Starschy said:

I hold this Bloomberg Story for nonsens. 40 Powerstation Imay believe but not that number. There is by far not enough Uran available. And Australia forget it. There are not enough qualified Chinese specialists available for that Job.

Well you are wrong, very wrong.

There's more than enough uranium avaiable, Uranium is a waste product stream of every single mining operation you can think off specially rare earth metals mining, supposing they dont use in the future breeder reactors on which they would barely need 1.5 tons of fuel a year per reactor.

Specialist builders? I'm going to tell you a secret, Concrete is cheap, Steel is cheap, Bureaucracy and interest rates are not, solve that and you can build as many as you want

Nuclear is technology from the 1950s, and the steam is tech from the 1930s, on which scale matters more than innovation or tech, the cost, tech, and alloys of modern ultra-supercritical coal powerplants is far above nuclear nowadays, the Chinks can make those pretty fast, then for sure they can make reactors, they use steam at 300°C, USS iowa did it at 450°C, modern coal plants work above 600°C

[Piotr Berman + 82]

China constructed a network of bullet trains, more than 20,000 miles with cost perhaps 600 B.  China invested a lot in solar power, they are absolute leader in low cost solar panels, not surprisingly, it did not ween them from coal.  Even discounting global warning, massive use of coal is "not conducive to clean air", and as the denizens of the capital are caughing etc., healthier live becomes a priority.

150 nuclear reactors is definitely what China can afford, but whatever China does lately, it has an enormous impact on commodity markets, so some global balance is needed.  In the long run, breeder reactors will be needed, it seems that at this moment it is not a mature technology, because of safety concerns, nuclear technology does not develop rapidly.  At this moment, Chinese nuclear program has 15-20 reactors at some stage of construction, so "150 program" is perhaps in 2050 time horizon.  Some attractive new reactors are build, e.g. Rosatom of Russia builds a reactor of medium size, 350 MW, with breeding, lead cooling and capability for doubling output for some number of hours in 24 cycle (superheated lead does not produce high pressure, so it is relatively easy to store heated lead that cooled the reactor and use it for steam generation laters), that solves several problems of nuclear power: fuel needs (fast neutrons and breeding), daily production cycle (so far, very small variability of output), worst case scenario (if lead coolant stops circulating, lead stops the chain reaction and safely entomb, no explosion or meltdown, if you have hundreds of reactors something may happen somewhere).

To eliminate several billions tons of coal burned every year in China, I guess you need many more reactors than this huge plan.  Perhaps 10 years is enough to advance to the next stage of technology, perhaps not, but I would guess that some of the most attractive designs of today will reach maturity in 10-20 years. 

 

 

 

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Holy shit. Imagine if we could do this in the West. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

Salt Breeder reactors or bust is my opinion.  Using only 0.003% of available Uranium is just STUPID and 100% of the Thorium is not used.... STUPID. I know, China is smart enough to be developing those as well.   If only we could get some forward thinkers here... This is the only solution for MOST of the world as EVERYONE has Thorium, while most have SOME Uranium as well. 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

17 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Salt Breeder reactors or bust is my opinion.  Using only 0.003% of available Uranium is just STUPID and 100% of the Thorium is not used.... STUPID. I know, China is smart enough to be developing those as well.   If only we could get some forward thinkers here... This is the only solution for MOST of the world as EVERYONE has Thorium, while most have SOME Uranium as well. 

A possibly stupid question. Is Thorium mined or fully bred? There seems to be incredible little of fissionable thorium in the nature left, even compared to uranium.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

29 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

A possibly stupid question. Is Thorium mined or fully bred? There seems to be incredible little of fissionable thorium in the nature left, even compared to uranium.

Thorium is practically everywhere in mining and a pain to get rid of.  To get Fissil Thor, you have to put it in a Uranium reactor first.  But, once it is started, you just keep adding Thor. 

[specinho + 439]

there has been a common belief, that says "nuclear reactors have to be built next to or close to a water body"..........

mm........ worries might be founded...

1. increase frequency of earthquake and stability of reactors at coastal zone

2. waste heat that raises water temperature and reduces the number of aquatic lives and/ or biodiversity

3. the final outcome of a fission or fusion is Plumbum? Water ( 😯 )? Something else that is radioactive?

4. pure concrete wall that could crack after a year or three...........

5. etc (end of thinking capacity)

Sincerely hope the race to build nuclear energy does not aim at producing clouds of steam that believed could be mitigating climate change or more specifically drought............?? 😳

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

2 hours ago, specinho said:

there has been a common belief, that says "nuclear reactors have to be built next to or close to a water body"..........

 

mm........ worries might be founded...

1. increase frequency of earthquake and stability of reactors at coastal zone

2. waste heat that raises water temperature and reduces the number of aquatic lives and/ or biodiversity

3. the final outcome of a fission or fusion is Plumbum? Water ( 😯 )? Something else that is radioactive?

4. pure concrete wall that could crack after a year or three...........

5. etc (end of thinking capacity)

Sincerely hope the race to build nuclear energy does not aim at producing clouds of steam that believed could be mitigating climate change or more specifically drought............?? 😳

1. Fukushima is not happening ever again. It was a trivially avoidable incident (a whole bunch of failsafes failed to engage, starting with some at the stage of planning the plant)

A Soviet nuclear power plant very near the epicenter once shrugged off the devastating

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Armenian_earthquake#Damage

2. The aquatic lives don't think to be affected much. The carp living in pools next to reactors sometimes get their eyes "cooked" white, as if it was a hard-boiled egg. The exact source of this is unknown, with there being no detectable radiation leak or excessive temperature. Roaches living on Russian nuclear subs become transparent, but otherwise not impaired in any way.

3. "Something else radioactive" is a good bet. Inert lead is produced at the end of transmutation cycle starting out with radioactive radon gas. The intermediates used to be called "daughters of radon"

http://www.ccnr.org/radon_chart.html

presumably on the account of being so nice/benign/not much of a radiation danger (pure alpha emitters, easily shielded by a sheet of paper) Polonium-210 you heard so much about is one of those.

4. They use special concrete for nuclear power plants

5. The population in general is incapable of telling smoke coming out of smokestack with steam coming out of a cooling tower and protest either with equal vigilance Hypothetically, water steam ought to be by far the more powerful "greenhouse gas" than CO2. If there was such a thing at all.

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Andrei Moutchkine

[specinho + 439]

On 11/10/2021 at 5:48 AM, Andrei Moutchkine said:

1. Fukushima is not happening ever again. It was a trivially avoidable incident (a whole bunch of failsafes failed to engage, starting with some at the stage of planning the plant)

A Soviet nuclear power plant very near the epicenter once shrugged off the devastating

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Armenian_earthquake#Damage

2. The aquatic lives don't think to be affected much. The carp living in pools next to reactors sometimes get their eyes "cooked" white, as if it was a hard-boiled egg. The exact source of this is unknown, with there being no detectable radiation leak or excessive temperature. Roaches living on Russian nuclear subs become transparent, but otherwise not impaired in any way.

3. "Something else radioactive" is a good bet. Inert lead is produced at the end of transmutation cycle starting out with radioactive radon gas. The intermediates used to be called "daughters of radon"

http://www.ccnr.org/radon_chart.html

presumably on the account of being so nice/benign/not much of a radiation danger (pure alpha emitters, easily shielded by a sheet of paper) Polonium-210 you heard so much about is one of those.

4. They use special concrete for nuclear power plants

5. The population in general is incapable of telling smoke coming out of smokestack with steam coming out of a cooling tower and protest either with equal vigilance Hypothetically, water steam ought to be by far the more powerful "greenhouse gas" than CO2. If there was such a thing at all.

 

we must take extra consideration when we mentioned something like that nowadays........ If we are fortunate enough, we would receive news that a group of innovative youngs and middle ages would suggest we dry up all water resources on the Earth to save the world.............. and receive huge funding to support their initiative...😮

🤭

p/s: fukushima might have been earthquake and tsunami induced + lacking of training on how to handle emergency conditions after the retirement of the pioneers/ elder generation.

pp/s: those fish you mentioned, which live next to the reactors, by your description, could have been well cooked or no longer able to be seen......

[nsdp + 449]

Some one failed to clear his story with Chairman Xi.