China to pioneer ‘pebble bed’ N-reactor (first 'meltdown-proof' reactor)

[truthpusher]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cf6dc8d2-7937-11d9-89c5-00000e2511c8.html

China to pioneer ‘pebble bed’ N-reactor
By Mure Dickie in Beijing
Published: February 7 2005 18:43 | Last updated: February 7 2005 18:43

China is poised to develop the world's first commercially operated “pebble bed” nuclear reactor after a Chinese energy consortium chose a site in the eastern province of Shandong to build a 195MW gas-cooled power plant.

An official representing the consortium, led by Huaneng, one of China's biggest power producers, said the proposed reactor could start producing electricity within five years.

If successfully commercialised, the pebble bed reactor would be the first radically new reactor design for several decades. It would push China to the forefront of development of a technology that researchers claim offers a new “meltdown-proof” alternative to standard water-cooled nuclear power stations.

High-temperature gas-cooled reactors have for decades offered the theoretical promise of cheap, safe and easily scalable nuclear power and China’s bold try at making them work will be closely watched.
Click here

story:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cf6dc8d2-7937-11d9-89c5-00000e2511c8.html

[DRoseDARs]

1. These were featured in PopSci magazine a few years back. n/t

[leveymg]

2. Now, if they could just do something about nuclear waste . . .

they might just have something to replace petroleum.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. Fun fact: The US could've had these fifty years ago.

Some of the scientists with the Atomic Energy Commission lobbied for adoption of this type of reactor, but it was ultimately decided to go with the water-cooled core-rod types thanks to the influence of Admiral Hyman Rickover, who wanted reactors that would produce steam and drive turbines for propulsion of naval vessels.

[Vogon_Glory]

4. I'd Sooner Have One of These Near Me Than A Soviet-Style Nuke

I'd sooner have a "pebble bed"-type reactor near me than a Soviet-style graphite-rod job like the infamous Chernobyl reactor. I wonder if the Chinese will do a better job at "idiot-proofing" these reactors than the beamish boys who designed the Three Mile Island reactors?

[Redstone]

5. Or a coal-burner...

with all the smoke and dust.

The Chinese reactor is interesting technology.

Redstone

[GHOSTDANCER]

26. I hate to rain on this parade. but,

There was a pebble bed reactor accident at Hamm-Uentrop West Germany nine days after the Chernobyl accident. On May 4 1986, a pebble became lodged in a feeder tube. Operators subsequently caused damage to the fuel during attempts to free the pebble. Radiation was released to the environs. The West German government closed down the research program because they found the reactor design unsafe.

See that last line? The West German government closed down the research program because they found the reactor design unsafe.

[Vogon_Glory]

30. Think Cienfuegos, Cuba...Soviet-style Nuke...

I am optimistic enough to believe that pebble-bed reactors could be redesigned to be even safer than the ones currently on the market. BTW, did you know that there was a project to build a Soviet-style graphite rod reactor in Cuba? Having been to Cienfuegos myself, I can personally testify to the existence of the containment dome there.

The Cienfuegos project is currently halted. I'd really rather that the Cubans didn't resume work on a Soviet-style reactor there.

[GHOSTDANCER]

35. I agree, I'm sure a safer pebble bed design can be engineered.

Lets hope the Chinese worked it out. We really need to be switching over to sustainable energy. Nuclear power plants regardless of how safe they may be today will one day cause huge problems for this planet. Mother nature can be a bitch some times.

[despairing optimist]

31. And if they don't, what's a few melted glaciers and radioactive fallout

between friends?

[SpiralHawk]

6. Affectionately nicknamed: "The NukeTanic"

Trust the experts. Absolutely nothing can go wrong.

Big Brother loves you.

"Reality is that which, when you no longer believe in it, still exists." - Phillip K. Dick

[AngryAmish]

7. I hope this works

It is our only chance for a clean enviroment.

[KittyWampus]

8. How Is Producing Nuclear Waste "Clean"?

And that doesn't even mention the mining of Uranium or the trouble of transporting nuclear waste and also safeguarding it.

[Stella_Artois]

9. What other alternatives are there ?

We can't keep dumping carbon into the air for ever.

There are only so many dams and wind farms that can be built.

[buzzard]

14. There has been some interesting research on tidal power, but unless

the government really pushes for clean renewable alternatives and stops denying the effects of greenhouse gases nothing will be accomplished.

http://www.electricenergyonline.com/IndustryNews.asp?m=1&id=31914

This is just one site of many, if you google tidal energy or tidal power you will find more. I think the problem with this is we just don't know the environmental impact this will have on marine habitats.

[hunter]

16. I keep having this dream where a dam is built under the Golden Gate Bridge

Yes, it would solve California's energy and fresh water problems, but the environmental consequences would be utterly horrendous.

The Three Gorges dam project in China, though not a tidal project, is a similar sort of environmental nightmare.

If we decide that a high energy economy is the only way to go (and I have many doubts about this) then nuclear power is the safest way to do it.

If the United States does not keep current on nuclear power technologies we will soon find ourselves purchasing nuclear power plants from other nations.

Coal burning power plants are not a reasonable option. Neither are large scale tidal and other sorts of hydroelectric development.

If the United States survives this "peak oil" crisis as an industrial first-world nation, we will probably do it by a combination of extensive re-engineering for energy efficiency, nuclear power, and other forms of "alternative" energy.

If we turn to coal as our primary energy source it means we no longer have the tools to deal with the world as a modern first-world nation. We will become a corrupt terrorist state with nuclear weapons; a malignant political force to be contained and constrained by more developed nations.

[Xithras]

22. Tidal power is extremely destructive

They have one of these things in France, and it's completely destroyed the natural ecosystem of the bay behind it. Remember, when you harness the energy of the sea for mans use, you prevent that energy from reaching the shore. That energy builds tidepools, beaches, sandbars, and other coastal features that wildlife depends on.

The only other viable ocean based power generation scheme I've seen involved placing huge underwater turbines on the ocean floor in high current areas. While this would generate HUGE amounts of power, the electricity would sterilize the surrounding ocean floor, disrupt local currents, and turn any large fish, dolphin, or whale unfortunate enough to swim though it into instant sushi.

[Nostradamus]

25. Hemp !!!

"... HEMP FOR FUEL
Excerpted from "Energy Farming in America," by Lynn Osburn

BIOMASS CONVERSION to fuel has proven economically feasible, first in laboratory tests and by continuous operation of pilot plants in field tests since 1973. When the energy crop is growing it takes in C02 from the air, so when it is burned the C02 is released, creating a balanced system.

Biomass is the term used to describe all biologically produced matter. World production of biomass is estimated at 146 billion metric tons a year, mostly wild plant growth. Some farm crops and trees can produce up to 20 metric tons per acre of biomass a year. Types of algae and grasses may produce 50 metric tons per year.

This biomass has a heating value of 5000-8000 BTU/lb, with virtually no ash or sulfur produced during combustion. About 6% of contiguous United States land area put into cultivation for biomass could supply all current demands for oil and gas.

The foundation upon which this will be achieved is the emerging concept of "energy farming," wherein farmers grow and harvest crops for biomass conversion to fuels.


http://fornits.com/curiosity/hemp/biomassa.htm

[kysrsoze]

10. Not exactly clean, but this stuff won't be as bad as typical nuke waste

There was a great article about this type of reactor in Wired a few months back. Poster above is correct - what's worse, this or all the CO2?

[jdj]

19. This.

because they aren't going to follow regulations about waste disposal (or anything else for that matter). People who work there could be walking around glowing bright green and the Bush admin would just tell them "it brings out your eyes."

Unless every corporateering fascist is wiped off the face of the earth, humanity will never be safe in the use of nuclear power.

[NickB79]

21. Burn it up in breeder reactors and eliminate it

This idea of throwing away spent nuclear material, when only ~3% of all uranium is fissioned after one fuel cycle, is utterly stupid and wasteful. Refission it, produce more energy, and burn up the waste in the reactor itself. No need to bury it in Yucca or whereever.

BTW, the environmental damage uranium mining does pales in comparison to the damage coal mining does.

[Occulus]

11. They're also working on the world's first commercial

fusion reactor, in a partnership with the EU and the US, among others:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3239806.stm

"The European Union has chosen France as its preferred location for a nuclear reactor that scientists hope will revolutionise world power production.

It will cost billions to build the fusion machine which releases energy in a similar way to the Sun's furnaces.

Scientists say the new reactor will be the first to give out a lot more power than it consumes on initial ignition.

International partners in the immense engineering project include Canada, the US, China, Japan, Russia and Korea. "

And THESE are the kinds of international projects that can bring together nations. Why oh WHY can't we put aside our petty differences and accomplish Truly Great Things by simply working together?

[420inTN]

12. That's not a commercial plant, but a prototype plant

It will be a decade or two (or longer) before we ever see a commercial plant.

[NickB79]

20. Well, until we build a space elevator, we will probably NEVER use fusion

Read post #122 from this thread on the Environmental Board:

"Thus all the tritium produced in Canada (one of the world's largest producers) over a period of several decades would be consumed in about 3-4 months to run a small insignificant reactor."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x18893#19317

The only remotely viable source of tritium is the Moon, where it is produced/captured in significant quantities by bombardment of the solar winds. The only way to mine and ship it economically is with cheap space travel, such as a space elevator.

[AngryAmish]

15. I wrote a paper about fusion in 7th grade

They said it was 10 years away from commerical viability.

I am 36 years old now.

Fusion is very difficult because the plasma is so difficult to contain. The only working fusion device is the H-Bomb.

[Junkdrawer]

13. Here's a wikipedia link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Note the part about being able to burn plutonium with this design. That would be key to the economics as Uranium is currently an expensive-and-soon-to-be-more-expensive fuel.

It also means a Plutonium Economy. :scared:

[daleo]

17. Would it be bomb-grade plutonium?

Perhaps there is no other kind. If so, the potential for nuclear terrorism seems to be increased substantially by this technology.

[Junkdrawer]

23. Which is why so many civil libertarians fear a Plutonium Economy...

Given the extraordinary impact that plutonium recycling may have on civil liberties, it is worth inquiring whether the AEC has a legal duty to consider that impact in making its decision about recycling. It is at least clear that the Commission has a duty to consider potential environmental effects of using plutonium.

Since the enactment in 1969 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), <343> all federal agencies have been required to assess the environmental impact of contemplated action and to prepare statements describing such impact and weighing alternative courses of action. <344> The AEC's draft environmental impact statement on plutonium recycling was prepared in satisfaction of this requirement. <345>

As this Comment has demonstrated, however, the circulation of plutonium in private commerce threatens to poison the legal as well as the natural environment. Once the recycling of plutonium commences on a large scale, the courts may be committed to upholding the legality of safeguards that seriously infringe important constitutional rights.

....


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

I've often mused that all this Patriot Act stuff may have been a setup for an eventual Plutonium Economy... :tinfoilhat:

[amandabeech]

18. Will this thing have a secondary containment structure?

I seem to recall reading sometime within the past year that the Pebble Bed Reactors are considered so safe that they will be built without that big concrete and steel bunker around them.

If so, I think that the Chinese are taking a big chance. Chernobyl did not have a secondary containment, and although it was of a much, much, much less safe design, the effects of any uncontained "event" will be much, much worse, even if it does not rise to Chernobyl-style proportions.

Not in my back yard, and I live within 15 miles of Three Mile Island.

[Junkdrawer]

24. According to this, economics dictatate that they won't...

The lack of a containment building is a necessity because cooling is by natural convection. Also, a containment building would hinder the modular design - that is - no additional reactors could be added onto the plant after initial construction. This modular capability is what is so appealing to utilities because it requires less investment from the beginning.

Frankly, this single point is enough to conclude that this reactor design is unsafe. The United States has criticized Soviet reactor designs for not having containment buildings. It is the last line of defense for containing a radiological release.

Furthermore, the lack of a containment building leaves the reactor(s) wide open to a terrorist attack.

...

http://www.tmia.com/industry/pebbles.html

[amandabeech]

28. Hopefully, the Chinese will do better at building the pebble bed

than their reputation suggests that they've been building dams.

Thanks for the info, junkdrawer. It confirms my worst recollections.

[buddysmellgood]

32. But it already is in your backyard.

[amandabeech]

34. Actually, both reactors at Three Mile Island have containment shells

and neither is a pebble bed reactor. The same goes for Peach Bottom, which is 45-60 miles away.

The containment shell at TMI2 kept a bad situation from being much, much worse. I am fully aware that nukes are risky, but I feel better knowing that the plants are constructed with safety foremost in mind. I also think that coal is risky because of global warming and the effect of NOX, SOX and particulates on all plants and animals.

I wish that we could get all our electrical energy from renewables, but I don't think that it is possible given the intermittent nature of solar and wind, coupled with vast regional differences in the prospects for such energy sources.

I favor serious conservation, renewables, and a combination of fossil fuels and nukes primarily for base loads.

[Jack_DeLeon]

27. It is so sad...

that the US is so behind the times.

We should be developing newer style nuclear power plants. It would definately help get us off some fossile fuels atleast for the short term till we could develop something better.

[Kool Kitty]

29. And the waste that these plants would create?

What would be done with the waste? They can't even deal with the nuclear waste we have now.

[buddysmellgood]

33. Well what does "dealt with" mean. I agree we need to find a place to put

it, but by the standards that we deal with coal, oil and gas, nuclear waste is very clean.

[Massacure]

36. Waste can be burned up in breeder reactors like Canada uses.

The boiling water reactors at U.S. plants only burn up 3% or so of the fissil material. Breeders are more effective.

Then after that material is used, it can be transmuted to reduce it to shorter lived half lifes and immobilised with borosilicate glass, put into corrosion resistant containeres, put into stable geographic depositories, and backfilled with an impermeable backfill such as bentonite clay