China to restart nuclear power program

[Lord Zentei]

Well, at least someone is moving forwards WRT these matters:

(Financial Times) -- Beijing has indicated that it will lift its year-long moratorium on new nuclear projects in a move that will breathe life into an industry plagued by uncertainty since the disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi reactor last year.

China's cabinet announced it had approved the 2020 nuclear strategy, finalised new safety standards and finished inspecting the country's existing nuclear plants. After the Japanese nuclear crisis China suspended approvals of new reactors while it conducted safety inspections and drafted new regulations.

Former Japanese leader: 'I felt fear' during nuclear crisis

As the world's largest energy user China is key to setting the direction of future global nuclear expansion. Beijing's latest announcement marks a major step towards the full resumption of its nuclear building programme, which accounts for 40 per cent of global reactors under construction today.

"This is the main hurdle," said Guo Shou, energy analyst at Barclays. "Approvals for new nuclear reactors are around the corner, they are going to come very, very soon."

Restarting nuclear approvals will help boost growth and create jobs in China's nuclear sector at a time when Beijing is weighing options on how to prevent a further slowdown in the economy, although the plans are not formally part of any stimulus programme.

China draws most of its energy from burning coal but Beijing is building up wind, solar, hydropower and nuclear power as it seeks to shift toward non-fossil fuel sources. The country is targeting 60GW of nuclear capacity in 2020, according to comments by Chinese officials, which would put China's reactor fleet on par with that of France.

North Korea proclaims itself a nuclear state in new constitution

In the aftermath of the Japanese nuclear crisis in March 2011, several European countries abandoned or postponed plans for nuclear expansion. However many emerging economies, including China, remained committed to nuclear power and are setting the pace of global nuclear growth.

China's new safety regulations are expected to provide a boost worldwide for the latest nuclear technologies, especially for "third-generation" reactors being built in China by Westinghouse of the US and Areva of France.

Chinese nuclear companies are also trying to expand their presence overseas and have bid for reactor contracts around the world.

New Japanese smartphone will have radiation detector

"The combination of technical experience, operational experience and support that can come out of China will make China a leader in the global nuclear industry," said George Borovas, head of the nuclear practice at global law firm Pillsbury. "We are starting to see it already. Chinese companies are in the international marketplace much more aggressively than they were one or two years ago."

China's cabinet said that some Chinese reactors will need to be upgraded under the new standards, citing the need for flood-safety and seismic-related improvements.

The announcement, which was posted online and dated May 31, clears the way for China's energy administration to roll out a set of more detailed policies, although the cabinet stopped short of saying exactly when new approvals would restart.

The 2020 plan and the new safety standards have not yet been released but the State Council said they would be published for public comment, without indicating when.

[The Romulan Republic]

I have no faith that China have safe reactors. There'll most likely be another catastrophy, which will increase the amount of opposition to nuclear power.

[Blayne]

Have you ever looked at the Chinese nuclear reactors or their nuclear history to see if that opinion is justified? My understanding is that Chinese nuclear technology is ahead of Canada's and are pioneering pebblebed reactors which are fundamentally safe.

[Mr Bean]

Have you ever looked at the Chinese nuclear reactors or their nuclear history to see if that opinion is justified? My understanding is that Chinese nuclear technology is ahead of Canada's and are pioneering pebblebed reactors which are fundamentally safe.

Correct, in world leaders of Nuclear Energy you have Canada, China and France. Some might argue which country is number one V number three but they are the top three in Nuclear energy research and nuclear safety.

I don't know if you know this RR but in China if your an official and your fuckup is big enough... they shoot you. Tends to be a powerful motivator not to skimp on saftey when working at one of the Party's flagship projects like Nuclear power. Being a Communist Dictatorship they have every reason not to skimp on safety because they... A, need the power, B, want to sell the technology at some point, C, have to clean up any fuckups and look after anyone who gets sick for the rest of their lives all of which are powerful motivators not to buy the 10$ safety over the 30$ safety valves with double backups.

This idea of shitty Chinese quality comes from any and all areas in the knock-off industry and poor quality control. I don't know if you know this (And chances are you don't) but there is a shit ton of stuff made in China and lots of it is grade A material thanks to having literally millions of people in manufacturing, oversight and quality assurance.

[mr friendly guy]

I have no faith that China have safe reactors. There'll most likely be another catastrophy, which will increase the amount of opposition to nuclear power.

Can you actually name a Chinese nuclear disaster, even one as bad as the over exaggerated 3 mile island?

Any way, back to the OP, I read about this as well. Its good to see someone has the sense to continue with the carbon neutral nuclear power. Since developed nations have lost a bit of appetite for it, I wonder if the Chinese can get their hands to look at some of the generation III and IV designs on the cheap. Of course the Chinese have some interesting things in the works as well, like a pebble bed reactor of which the prototype is already built and resurrecting the old thorium designs. But it doesn't hurt to have a look at what the other guys are doing as well.

[mr friendly guy]

Oh, it seems like the new safety regulations require most nuclear reactors to have generation III safety features. To my understanding that means if there is a disaster, no human intervention is theoretically required because the lost of power will prompt the safety features to activate.

I am really hoping they start developing the pebble beds and thorium reactors as I forsee them being a good export item to other countries hungry for nuclear because of a very important feature. You can't weaponise the nuclear products so we will hear less bitching from the US.

[Magis]

Correct, in world leaders of Nuclear Energy you have Canada, China and France. Some might argue which country is number one V number three but they are the top three in Nuclear energy research and nuclear safety.

Incorrect, in the world leaders of Nuclear Energy you have France, the USA and Japan. I really can't believe how you could figure that Canada should be on that list but exclude the USA. In my view, if Canada were to be considered a leader at all, it would probably be 4th, or maybe even 5th after South Korea. And China, while certainly a great market for new reactors, is no at leader in any aspect of designing their own nuclear technology. They'll probably acquire that knowledge and those skills at some point, but they're not close yet, which is why the Chinese state company that is currently "designing" its first LWR is contracting out all the safety analysis and simulation to organizations in other countries.

[Aharon]

Mr. Bean:
@chinese quality
Despite the potential draconian measures, there have been scandals, like the 2008 milk scandal and the 2009 lead poisoning scandal. Obviously. the people in power still cut costs/safety sometimes if they think nobody will find out.

mr friendly guy:
I'm no expert, admittedly most of my knowledge on this topic stems from Wikipedia and the sources I get from there. The Wikipedia article on the german high temperature reactor says that a DBA could still result in the emission of lots of radioactive material. Given the timeline (building started in 1971, operation ended in 1988), I assume it was generation II. Could you briefly explain what the differences between generations is?

[Mr Bean]

Mr. Bean:
@chinese quality
Despite the potential draconian measures, there have been scandals, like the 2008 milk scandal and the 2009 lead poisoning scandal.

And as you'll remember those responsible were either fired or executed or fired then executed and baby milk and lead toys are pretty far down the line in importance from Nuclear safety. I said again flagship items.

Incorrect, in the world leaders of Nuclear Energy you have France, the USA and Japan. I really can't believe how you could figure that Canada should be on that list but exclude the USA. In my view, if Canada were to be considered a leader at all, it would probably be 4th, or maybe even 5th after South Korea. And China, while certainly a great market for new reactors, is no at leader in any aspect of designing their own nuclear technology. They'll probably acquire that knowledge and those skills at some point, but they're not close yet, which is why the Chinese state company that is currently "designing" its first LWR is contracting out all the safety analysis and simulation to organizations in other countries.

Incorrect the Japanese just decided to shut down their entire nuclear industry and have already de-funded lots of things. You can't call the Dallas Cowboy's if they just fired the entire team. As for the US we've not made a new nuclear power plant since 1973 calling us a leader with that kind of track record is frankly crazy.

[mr friendly guy]

Correct, in world leaders of Nuclear Energy you have Canada, China and France. Some might argue which country is number one V number three but they are the top three in Nuclear energy research and nuclear safety.

Incorrect, in the world leaders of Nuclear Energy you have France, the USA and Japan. I really can't believe how you could figure that Canada should be on that list but exclude the USA. In my view, if Canada were to be considered a leader at all, it would probably be 4th, or maybe even 5th after South Korea. And China, while certainly a great market for new reactors, is no at leader in any aspect of designing their own nuclear technology. They'll probably acquire that knowledge and those skills at some point, but they're not close yet, which is why the Chinese state company that is currently "designing" its first LWR is contracting out all the safety analysis and simulation to organizations in other countries.

Haven't they already got the tech transfer for the AP1000 from Westinghouse, and have two plants which are scheduled to be completed by 2015?

Mr. Bean:
@chinese quality
Despite the potential draconian measures, there have been scandals, like the 2008 milk scandal and the 2009 lead poisoning scandal. Obviously. the people in power still cut costs/safety sometimes if they think nobody will find out.

mr friendly guy:
I'm no expert, admittedly most of my knowledge on this topic stems from Wikipedia and the sources I get from there. The Wikipedia article on the german high temperature reactor says that a DBA could still result in the emission of lots of radioactive material. Given the timeline (building started in 1971, operation ended in 1988), I assume it was generation II. Could you briefly explain what the differences between generations is?

I started reading about nukes from wiki too, and then expanded from there. As such wiki explains it nicely. However what I was referring to earlier is the passive safety features.

[Blayne]

A glance at wikipedia seems to be positively glowing review of Canada's nuclear industry and technology, we produce the CANDU's afterall.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm glad to hear this for a number of reasons. Personally I figure it's only a matter of time until a major disaster or near-disaster* happens at a Chinese plant (nothing's perfect and China will have a LOT of them), but I feel reasonably confident the Chinese can control it themselves and it won't be as high-profile or bad as Chernobyl. In this one case I feel like there's an upside to the policy of keeping the media away from coverage of the disaster. If you actually go and evacuate people properly, then there's really not much downside to telling your own news media to shut up and not explain the horrible horrible disaster of nuclear NUCLEAR NUCLEAR power long enough for the first surge of hysteria to damp down. Something like Fukushima gets global news coverage out of all proportion to the danger, and it creates a disproportionate response.

*Three Mile Island was a near-disaster. Fukushima was a disaster.

This idea of shitty Chinese quality comes from any and all areas in the knock-off industry and poor quality control. I don't know if you know this (And chances are you don't) but there is a shit ton of stuff made in China and lots of it is grade A material thanks to having literally millions of people in manufacturing, oversight and quality assurance.

Although from what I think I know, the Chinese are still having trouble at the high end with things like jet turbines- they've got the capacity but doing it reliably is still expensive. This seems to be improving (witness their space program), so it's not critical. Also, a big part of safety and foolproofing in nuclear reactors is a matter of engineering, not industrial capability: having sane procedures, actually thinking through failure modes, designing things with backups on the backups to the backups, and so on.

I have no faith that China have safe reactors. There'll most likely be another catastrophy, which will increase the amount of opposition to nuclear power.

Can you actually name a Chinese nuclear disaster, even one as bad as the over exaggerated 3 mile island?

Any way, back to the OP, I read about this as well. Its good to see someone has the sense to continue with the carbon neutral nuclear power. Since developed nations have lost a bit of appetite for it, I wonder if the Chinese can get their hands to look at some of the generation III and IV designs on the cheap. Of course the Chinese have some interesting things in the works as well, like a pebble bed reactor of which the prototype is already built and resurrecting the old thorium designs. But it doesn't hurt to have a look at what the other guys are doing as well.

A glance at wikipedia seems to be positively glowing review of Canada's nuclear industry and technology, we produce the CANDU's afterall.

In this case, that may say more about Wikipedia than about Canada.

No one reasonable will dispute that Canada has a major, respectable nuclear industry. Where to put them when it comes to ranking the top three/four/whatever? That's not a question that Wikipedia can answer, because one earnest booster of Canadian nuclear power can alter the whole tone of the articles.

[Mr Bean]

What puts Canada in the top three is a willingness to experiment and a focus on Thorium and mixed fuel reactors which are a type of reactor we desperately need long term. Also they will likely be the first place we build a proper Gen 4 in the next decade rather than shoving out tweaked gen 2 designs again like we are intending to do in America with out grand plan of building thirty Gen 2s and a single Gen 3.

[Magis]

What puts Canada in the top three is a willingness to experiment and a focus on Thorium and mixed fuel reactors which are a type of reactor we desperately need long term. Also they will likely be the first place we build a proper Gen 4 in the next decade rather than shoving out tweaked gen 2 designs again like we are intending to do in America with out grand plan of building thirty Gen 2s and a single Gen 3.

I wouldn't say that the Canadian nuclear field is focusing on thorium. Sure, there is a Gen IV program that involves a Th/Pu fuel mix, but it's still in the pre-conceptual phase, and the Gen IV program only consists of some staff at Chalk River along with a bit of university participation. The Canadian industry isn't looking to put thorium in anything, and the SCWR is still an estimated 40 years away - there is also considerable doubt that a prototype will ever actually be constructed.

As far as a willingness to experiment, I'm not sure if you mean actual experimental facilities, or just that the industry has a willingness to try new things. Either way, I don't think the Canadian nuclear community has any more willingness to experiment than, say, the USA. We don't even have a fusion research program here in Canada, and industrial fission experiments are motivated by regulatory demands rather than a desire to innovate. Heck, at least Korea actually is operating some Maple reactors after the Canadian government scrapped that program.

We're also lagging far behind when it comes to analysis tools, including code development. All the exciting work there is being done either in the USA or Europe. Canada also doesn't contribute meaningfully to nuclear data evaluation. In fact, aside from the SCWR project (which is also being worked on by Europeans), I can't really think of any area were the Canadian nuclear community is leading, except in heavy water technology, but that was all developed decades ago.

I agree that at one time, Canadians were world leaders in this area. But decades of government neglect, a lack of funding for research, industry and education, and a needlessly adversarial regulator have done a lot of damage, and I don't know when - if ever - that will be reversed.