Excellent news. :)
http://www.firstpost.com/world/china-to-invest-78-bn-to-build-110-nuclear-power-plants-by-2030-will-overtake-us-2471414.html
QuoteChina to invest $78 bn to build 110 nuclear power plants by 2030, will overtake US
Oct 16, 2015 15:54 IST
Beijing: China plans to build 110 nuclear power plants by 2030 with an investment of over $78 billion overtaking the US which has 100 such plants amid criticism that Beijing is yet to implement enough measures to develop safety controls in existing projects.
China will build six to eight nuclear power plants annually for the next five years and operate 110 plants by 2030 to meet the urgent need for clean energy, Beijing-based China Times quoted plan analysts as saying.
China will invest 500 billion yuan ($78.8 billion) on domestically developed nuclear power plants, the report said.
According to the China Times, the country plans to increase its electricity generation capacity to 58 gigawatts by 2020, three times the 2014 level.
More than 110 nuclear power plants will be put into operation by the end of 2030, exceeding the number of plants in the US.
China currently has 23 nuclear power generating units in operation and 27 under construction, about one-third of the world's unfinished nuclear units.
The construction resumed after the Chinese government which put the brakes on nuclear power plant approvals after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011 permitted their construction after a safety review.
The urgent need for clean energy to meet increasing power demand and reduce carbon dioxide emissions has led to the renewed development of nuclear projects, a nuclear safety expert at an energy cooperation firm in Beijing told Global Times.
He Zuoxiu, a theoretical physicist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told the same daily that China has yet to implement enough measures to develop safety control technology and facilities for nuclear power plants.
He said four countries - the US, Japan, France and the former Soviet Union - which have more than 50 nuclear power plants, suffered from nuclear accidents.
He said the government should attach greater importance to other clean energy resources such as wind and hydroelectric power, which are abundant in China, instead of building too many nuclear power plants.
Zhou Dadi, vice director of the China Energy Research Society said that China generates only about 2 per cent of its total electricity from nuclear power plants, while the average global proportion is 14 per cent, adding that China is in a great position to develop its nuclear projects.
He added that using nuclear power could also make China less dependent on imported energy such as gas and oil though safety concerns should not stunt the industry.
"Due to China's mature nuclear technology and strict safety controls, serious accidents are unlikely to happen," Zhou said.
China is also aggressively marketing its new 1100 MW nuclear technology abroad. Pakistan and Argentina have already opted for it.
PTI
I don't think Chinese quality nuclear anything is excellent news.
Relax. It will never kill anywhere near as many people as Chinese hydro.
A Chinese dam bursting has little potential effect on me, outside of higher rice prices maybe. 110 Chinese reactors failing due to cheap plastic parts has the real possibility to fuck my shit up.
In most other countries yes, excellent news.
But yeah. Chinese safety standards leave much to be desired
Quote from: sbr on October 18, 2015, 11:54:50 AM
A Chinese dam bursting has little potential effect on me, outside of higher rice prices maybe. 110 Chinese reactors failing due to cheap plastic parts has the real possibility to fuck my shit up.
Like the US reactor that failed?
Quote from: The Brain on October 18, 2015, 12:09:02 PM
Quote from: sbr on October 18, 2015, 11:54:50 AM
A Chinese dam bursting has little potential effect on me, outside of higher rice prices maybe. 110 Chinese reactors failing due to cheap plastic parts has the real possibility to fuck my shit up.
Like the US reactor that failed?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.meme.am%2Finstances%2F60584021.jpg&hash=84ad55994a0c7a227d65c6b04aafd79a327078ac)
Here is a celebratory
MEME for the Brian.
Quote from: Jaron on October 18, 2015, 01:28:14 PM
Here is a celebratory MEME for the Brian.
Give one to Raz as well.
On the plus side, once China irradiates itself the west will be off the hook for all the money we owe it.
Quote from: The Brain on October 18, 2015, 12:09:02 PM
Quote from: sbr on October 18, 2015, 11:54:50 AM
A Chinese dam bursting has little potential effect on me, outside of higher rice prices maybe. 110 Chinese reactors failing due to cheap plastic parts has the real possibility to fuck my shit up.
Like the US reactor that failed?
I'm not sure TMI is the best example of a worst-case reactor failure.
I for one welcome this. There is a nuclear power plant that is like 50 miles away from Hong Kong, and it was built in the 80s. Pretty sure some of the electricity that I use comes from there. I don't think there is much choice. The air quality in China is so bad that it is a much bigger risk to health than the risk associated with nuclear reactors. Solar and wind are not economical, and they have already built hydro power in most places where those can be built. See Three Gorges Dam.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 18, 2015, 08:34:59 PM
I for one welcome this. There is a nuclear power plant that is like 50 miles away from Hong Kong, and it was built in the 80s. Pretty sure some of the electricity that I use comes from there. I don't think there is much choice. The air quality in China is so bad that it is a much bigger risk to health than the risk associated with nuclear reactors. Solar and wind are not economical, and they have already built hydro power in most places where those can be built. See Three Gorges Dam.
Says who? The price has come down drastically in the last ten years.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 18, 2015, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on October 18, 2015, 08:34:59 PM
I for one welcome this. There is a nuclear power plant that is like 50 miles away from Hong Kong, and it was built in the 80s. Pretty sure some of the electricity that I use comes from there. I don't think there is much choice. The air quality in China is so bad that it is a much bigger risk to health than the risk associated with nuclear reactors. Solar and wind are not economical, and they have already built hydro power in most places where those can be built. See Three Gorges Dam.
Says who? The price has come down drastically in the last ten years.
You'd think with China's vast wind swept deserts that there'd be a ripe market for wind power.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 18, 2015, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on October 18, 2015, 08:34:59 PM
I for one welcome this. There is a nuclear power plant that is like 50 miles away from Hong Kong, and it was built in the 80s. Pretty sure some of the electricity that I use comes from there. I don't think there is much choice. The air quality in China is so bad that it is a much bigger risk to health than the risk associated with nuclear reactors. Solar and wind are not economical, and they have already built hydro power in most places where those can be built. See Three Gorges Dam.
Says who? The price has come down drastically in the last ten years.
It isn't just the price of the solar panels or the wind turbines. It is whether they are practical. Even if you put solar panels on the rooftop of every building in Hong Kong, the amount of electricity generated will be negligible for our needs. In a public housing estate for example, 25,000 people live in eight buildings. The surface area of the rooftop of those eight buildings is no where near enough. You also need to account for the inherent instabilities in the wind and solar power generation systems. You don't get wind all the time, and you don't get sunlight all the time.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 18, 2015, 10:21:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 18, 2015, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on October 18, 2015, 08:34:59 PM
I for one welcome this. There is a nuclear power plant that is like 50 miles away from Hong Kong, and it was built in the 80s. Pretty sure some of the electricity that I use comes from there. I don't think there is much choice. The air quality in China is so bad that it is a much bigger risk to health than the risk associated with nuclear reactors. Solar and wind are not economical, and they have already built hydro power in most places where those can be built. See Three Gorges Dam.
Says who? The price has come down drastically in the last ten years.
It isn't just the price of the solar panels or the wind turbines. It is whether they are practical. Even if you put solar panels on the rooftop of every building in Hong Kong, the amount of electricity generated will be negligible for our needs. In a public housing estate for example, 25,000 people live in eight buildings. The surface area of the rooftop of those eight buildings is no where near enough. You also need to account for the inherent instabilities in the wind and solar power generation systems. You don't get wind all the time, and you don't get sunlight all the time.
Obviously it's impractical for the city of Hong Kong, but for a large country solar and wind can supply a substansial percentage of the power.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 18, 2015, 10:57:33 PM
Obviously it's impractical for the city of Hong Kong, but for a large country solar and wind can supply a substansial percentage of the power.
Hong Kong isn't the only large, densely populated Chinese city. It doesn't work here, it won't work in Shanghai and a bunch of other places.
Plus, it isn't just a matter of if "it works". It has to be "better" than other options. For a public policy maker, you don't just choose an option because "it works". Your financial resources are limited, and you should pick the best option out of those on the table. For wind and solar to win, they have to be better than the, well, nuclear option.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 18, 2015, 11:20:27 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 18, 2015, 10:57:33 PM
Obviously it's impractical for the city of Hong Kong, but for a large country solar and wind can supply a substansial percentage of the power.
Hong Kong isn't the only large, densely populated Chinese city. It doesn't work here, it won't work in Shanghai and a bunch of other places.
Plus, it isn't just a matter of if "it works". It has to be "better" than other options. For a public policy maker, you don't just choose an option because "it works". Your financial resources are limited, and you should pick the best option out of those on the table. For wind and solar to win, they have to be better than the, well, nuclear option.
Is that measured only by output? How heavily weighted are potential disasters/environmental factors?
Quote from: Monoriu on October 18, 2015, 11:20:27 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 18, 2015, 10:57:33 PM
Obviously it's impractical for the city of Hong Kong, but for a large country solar and wind can supply a substansial percentage of the power.
Hong Kong isn't the only large, densely populated Chinese city. It doesn't work here, it won't work in Shanghai and a bunch of other places.
Plus, it isn't just a matter of if "it works". It has to be "better" than other options. For a public policy maker, you don't just choose an option because "it works". Your financial resources are limited, and you should pick the best option out of those on the table. For wind and solar to win, they have to be better than the, well, nuclear option.
Germany is very densely populated and it isn't that sunny, yet they produce almost 7% of their energy with solar power.
7%! For realz? :P
All their nuclear plants will be wiped out by that EMP. :(
Quote from: Monoriu on October 18, 2015, 08:34:59 PM
I for one welcome this. There is a nuclear power plant that is like 50 miles away from Hong Kong, and it was built in the 80s. Pretty sure some of the electricity that I use comes from there. I don't think there is much choice. The air quality in China is so bad that it is a much bigger risk to health than the risk associated with nuclear reactors. Solar and wind are not economical, and they have already built hydro power in most places where those can be built. See Three Gorges Dam.
Denmark disagrees.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand
Your article doesn't mention the cost-effectiveness of wind.
Quote from: Tyr on October 19, 2015, 02:51:05 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on October 18, 2015, 08:34:59 PM
I for one welcome this. There is a nuclear power plant that is like 50 miles away from Hong Kong, and it was built in the 80s. Pretty sure some of the electricity that I use comes from there. I don't think there is much choice. The air quality in China is so bad that it is a much bigger risk to health than the risk associated with nuclear reactors. Solar and wind are not economical, and they have already built hydro power in most places where those can be built. See Three Gorges Dam.
Denmark disagrees.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand
On an unusually windy day. What about the days when there is little to no wind? Unlike Denmark, China cannot hope to import electricity to meet its needs. China's electricity usage is too high, and most of the countries near China probably don't have much spare capacity in the first place.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 19, 2015, 05:40:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 19, 2015, 02:51:05 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on October 18, 2015, 08:34:59 PM
I for one welcome this. There is a nuclear power plant that is like 50 miles away from Hong Kong, and it was built in the 80s. Pretty sure some of the electricity that I use comes from there. I don't think there is much choice. The air quality in China is so bad that it is a much bigger risk to health than the risk associated with nuclear reactors. Solar and wind are not economical, and they have already built hydro power in most places where those can be built. See Three Gorges Dam.
Denmark disagrees.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand
On an unusually windy day. What about the days when there is little to no wind? Unlike Denmark, China cannot hope to import electricity to meet its needs. China's electricity usage is too high, and most of the countries near China probably don't have much spare capacity in the first place.
That's why you have backup sources, like hydro, that can work on a constant basis and increase output to cover for shortfalls in other parts of the mix. Nobody argues for 100% wind.
But that is why China needs nuclear plants - it is the only non fossil fuel source that will be consistent. China cannot rely on an external grid
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 19, 2015, 02:26:32 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on October 18, 2015, 11:20:27 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 18, 2015, 10:57:33 PM
Obviously it's impractical for the city of Hong Kong, but for a large country solar and wind can supply a substansial percentage of the power.
Hong Kong isn't the only large, densely populated Chinese city. It doesn't work here, it won't work in Shanghai and a bunch of other places.
Plus, it isn't just a matter of if "it works". It has to be "better" than other options. For a public policy maker, you don't just choose an option because "it works". Your financial resources are limited, and you should pick the best option out of those on the table. For wind and solar to win, they have to be better than the, well, nuclear option.
Germany is very densely populated and it isn't that sunny, yet they produce almost 7% of their energy with solar power.
AND heavily subsidised by the tax payer! :w00t:
I don't know though if the same model as in the UK, where part of the electricity price is going for solar subsidising. So yes, in effect, the poor are paying so the rich can save money.
Quote from: The Larch on October 19, 2015, 06:51:29 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on October 19, 2015, 05:40:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 19, 2015, 02:51:05 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on October 18, 2015, 08:34:59 PM
I for one welcome this. There is a nuclear power plant that is like 50 miles away from Hong Kong, and it was built in the 80s. Pretty sure some of the electricity that I use comes from there. I don't think there is much choice. The air quality in China is so bad that it is a much bigger risk to health than the risk associated with nuclear reactors. Solar and wind are not economical, and they have already built hydro power in most places where those can be built. See Three Gorges Dam.
Denmark disagrees.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand
On an unusually windy day. What about the days when there is little to no wind? Unlike Denmark, China cannot hope to import electricity to meet its needs. China's electricity usage is too high, and most of the countries near China probably don't have much spare capacity in the first place.
That's why you have backup sources, like hydro, that can work on a constant basis and increase output to cover for shortfalls in other parts of the mix. Nobody argues for 100% wind.
Hydro is no where near enough. 80% of China's gigantic power output is generated by fossil fuels. We are talking about a country with 1.3-1.4 billion people, not Denmark with 5 million people. Hong Kong alone has 7.2 million. If not fossil fuels, that backup power has to be nuclear.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 18, 2015, 10:21:02 PM
It isn't just the price of the solar panels or the wind turbines. It is whether they are practical. Even if you put solar panels on the rooftop of every building in Hong Kong, the amount of electricity generated will be negligible for our needs. In a public housing estate for example, 25,000 people live in eight buildings. The surface area of the rooftop of those eight buildings is no where near enough. You also need to account for the inherent instabilities in the wind and solar power generation systems. You don't get wind all the time, and you don't get sunlight all the time.
Plenty of windows though.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extremetech.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2Ftransparent-luminescent-solar-concentrator-module-640x424.jpg&hash=2ee9051576aaa6a5f20e164cd265d5b1517cdbf7)
Quote from: Monoriu on October 18, 2015, 10:21:02 PM
It isn't just the price of the solar panels or the wind turbines. It is whether they are practical. Even if you put solar panels on the rooftop of every building in Hong Kong, the amount of electricity generated will be negligible for our needs. In a public housing estate for example, 25,000 people live in eight buildings. The surface area of the rooftop of those eight buildings is no where near enough. You also need to account for the inherent instabilities in the wind and solar power generation systems. You don't get wind all the time, and you don't get sunlight all the time.
True when you have such enormous energy needs in one building with a tiny rooftop, rooftop solar is probably not going to satisfy the needs of the building. But China itself has a bit more empty space.
In any case China is already a world leader in the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines and already use them extensively so I would be surprised if they were not in their energy strategy.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 19, 2015, 05:40:58 AM
On an unusually windy day. What about the days when there is little to no wind? Unlike Denmark, China cannot hope to import electricity to meet its needs. China's electricity usage is too high, and most of the countries near China probably don't have much spare capacity in the first place.
Well you have turbines in different places. In Texas we have this handy effect where the wind blows on the coastal plain whenever it is not blowing in the western desert.
It makes sense for China to invest in nuclear and renewables like wind or solar. The last has actually seen a massive drop in prices once China became involved in the business. It is certainly economical to use solar and wind as part of the energy mix in China, but I can see why they invest into nuclear for their baseload. Everything is better than the coal-powered plants they have now.
Quote from: Tamas on October 19, 2015, 07:46:19 AM
AND heavily subsidised by the tax payer! :w00t:
I don't know though if the same model as in the UK, where part of the electricity price is going for solar subsidising. So yes, in effect, the poor are paying so the rich can save money.
Yes, it's the same model.
That said, nuclear power wouldn't exist in Germany without gigantic subsidies from the tax payer either. If you would just produce energy without any market regulation, you would have 100% coal power in Germany.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 19, 2015, 08:28:36 AM
Hydro is no where near enough. 80% of China's gigantic power output is generated by fossil fuels. We are talking about a country with 1.3-1.4 billion people, not Denmark with 5 million people. Hong Kong alone has 7.2 million. If not fossil fuels, that backup power has to be nuclear.
I thought someone would bring that up.
Of course Denmark: China is a bad comparison.
But surely Denmark's population is about comparable to a decent sized Chinese city?
And its land area must be about the size of a Chinese province (or hell, in this day and age of stupid definitions a Chinese city perhaps even).
Quote from: Zanza on October 19, 2015, 11:19:46 AM
It makes sense for China to invest in nuclear and renewables like wind or solar. The last has actually seen a massive drop in prices once China became involved in the business. It is certainly economical to use solar and wind as part of the energy mix in China, but I can see why they invest into nuclear for their baseload. Everything is better than the coal-powered plants they have now.
Agree. China needs energy production now, not in some semi-distant future when energy transmission costs allow for placement of wind and solar generation fields where they wilol yield useful electricity, and then sending that power to where it is needed. The political corruption gives one pause because of the potential for disaster based on shoddy materials or workmanship from sketchy contractors, but the choice of nuclear power isn't a dumb one.
Oh, and if the estimate is $78 billion for 110 plants, we know the actual cost will exceed $156 billion. That's just the way nuclear rolls.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2015, 03:42:21 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 19, 2015, 11:19:46 AM
It makes sense for China to invest in nuclear and renewables like wind or solar. The last has actually seen a massive drop in prices once China became involved in the business. It is certainly economical to use solar and wind as part of the energy mix in China, but I can see why they invest into nuclear for their baseload. Everything is better than the coal-powered plants they have now.
Agree. China needs energy production now, not in some semi-distant future when energy transmission costs allow for placement of wind and solar generation fields where they wilol yield useful electricity, and then sending that power to where it is needed. The political corruption gives one pause because of the potential for disaster based on shoddy materials or workmanship from sketchy contractors, but the choice of nuclear power isn't a dumb one.
They are already building wind farms out in the boondoncoks. They are currently building the biggest wind farm complex in the world somewhere in the Gobi desert near the Mongolian border. This being China, even that far away province has something like 20 million people living there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gansu_Wind_Farm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gansu_Wind_Farm)
They've also invested heavily in long distance electricity transmision in the last few years.
FWIW Japan has had a poor safety reputation in the nuclear business for many years. I haven't heard much about China yet.
Quote from: The Larch on October 19, 2015, 04:07:31 PM
They are already building wind farms out in the boondoncoks.
Fun fact: boondocks is a loan word from Tagalog, the major Phillipino language. It originally meant mountain.
I'm sure I've mentioned this before, probably several times.
Lord have mercy on a boy from down in the boondocks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2015, 04:28:47 PM
Quote from: The Larch on October 19, 2015, 04:07:31 PM
They are already building wind farms out in the boondoncoks.
Fun fact: boondocks is a loan word from Tagalog, the major Phillipino language. It originally meant mountain.
I'm sure I've mentioned this before, probably several times.
Nah - never heard it before. Interesting.