China, its fast breeder reactor having gone critical, to order two large Russian Fast Reactors.

[NNadir]

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=28097&terms=fast%20reactor">Criticality for fast reactor

China has achieved criticality at its first fast neutron reactor, a small unit near Beijing, while plans are developing for a full scale fast reactor power plant in the country.

The Chinese Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR) achieved sustained fission for the first time yesterday, said owner the China Institute of Atomic Energy (CIEA). The reactor will go on to reach a thermal capacity of 60 MW and produce 20 MW in electrical power for the grid. The first sodium-cooled fast reactor in the country, it was built by Russia's OKBM Afrikantov in collaboration with OKB Gidropress, NIKIET and Kurchatov Institute.

Beyond this pilot plant, China onced planned a 600 MWe commercial scale version by 2020 and a 1500 MWe version in 2030 but these ambitious ideas have been overtaken by the import of ready-developed Russian designs. In October last year an agreement was signed by CIAE and China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation (CNEIC) with AtomStroyExport to start pre-project and design works for a commercial nuclear power plant with two BN-800 reactors with construction to start in August 2011, probably at a coastal site.

[Fumesucker]

1. Lends a whole new meaning to the term "China Syndrome", eh?

[DrGregory]

6. turn about is fair play

Lends a whole new meaning to the term "China Syndrome", eh?
==========================================================

Perhaps in China it's known as "USA Syndrome"

Dr. Greg

[Lasher]

2. I thought they were only allowed to breed one of them per couple.

Sorry. Musta been them pills I took.

[NNadir]

4. Groan...

[DJ13]

3. See, Iran should have bought a few trillion in US Treasury notes

China seems to have bought immunity from international criticism for their nuclear ambitions.

[NNadir]

5. The Chinese nuclear program is one of the most respected in the world.

Within 20 years they will build about 200 reactors, making them the largest producer of nuclear energy in the world.

They couldn't care less what anti-nukes in the West think about their program.

[DrGregory]

7. It has to do with the Treaty obligations

China seems to have bought immunity from international criticism for their nuclear ambitions.
=========================

It all depends on what a country has promised in Treaty.

Iran is a "non-nuclear weapons state" signatory of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In exchange for data
and access to technology, Iran promised that it would
not build nuclear weapons. It appears Iran is going
back on its treaty obligations.

China is also a signatory of the NPT; but as a
"nuclear weapon state" signatory.

I didn't write the Treaty, so don't blame me for
it being "unfair"; but the NPT is asymmetric. It
divided the signatories into "nuclear haves" and
"nuclear have nots". China is a "nuclear have"
and Iran a "nuclear have not".

Don't say; "but that's not fair". Nobody forced
Iran to sign the treaty.

If you sign a mortgage for your house for 5 points
over the going rate - do you expect the Courts to
come in and reduce your mortgage rate. Nobody made
you sign the mortgage papers; for what ever reason,
you decided to do this - now live with it.

Same for Iran - they made a promise not to build
nuclear weapons - somebody should force them to
live with that decision.

Dr. Greg

[Ghost Dog]

11. Can you show evidence that "Iran is going back on its treaty obligations"?

[leveymg]

8. The Israeli Air Force is on the way . . . in five . . . four . . . three . . . two . . .

[NickB79]

9. We all know fast breeders are unsuccessful!

Don't confuse us with facts, damn it!

[TheMadMonk]

10. While I don't like the idea of using something as volatile as liquid sodium...

...as a coolant at all, they haven't been completely unsuccessful. I will agree that most existing plants are not viable from an economic standpoint alone, it has been military considerations to a large extent that have kept them limping along.

However, there has also been some damned good science done on them. Proliferation resistant fuel cycles have been developed that eliminate the need to separate out the "dangerous" isotopes. Waste elimination has been demonstrated at a viable cost.

No one has yet put all the pieces together in one place. A Fast breeder, satellite conventional reactors, reprocessing plants for fuel and waste, but the OP suggests very strongly that China is beginning to do just that. One hopes with waste management as well as fuel production in mind.


As I said, I don't like liquid sodium cooled reactors. However, I understand their utility and with proper safeguards all the risks that truly matter can be managed. I also understand the need to move forward with what we have right now, rather than waiting for one of a few rather promising alternatives to mature.


Personally, I think the single biggest fear, a nuclear weapon falling into the wrong hands is much overrated. First of all there are only a tiny handful of nations that have any hope whatsoever of getting away with using a nuke on any pretext. The mad scientist meme is good for Hollywood, but not the real world. Anyone smart enough to conceive a viable plan is also smart enough to recognise the ultimate futility of the attempt. Think small and only hold NY to ransom for a billion or ten? How do you live to enjoy the fruits of your labour, when the only way to collect is to take your finger off the trigger?

One nuke is too small to think big, and too way too big to think small.

About the only real joker in the deck is religious fanatacism of any stripe, and there the odds are unfortunately significant that we will see an event, quite possibly with very tragic results. However, if it happens, there is every liklihood that the perpetrators will stand in brief glorious isolation, before they are utterly anhilated by their closest allies.

Ultimately the nuclear power as an option debate boils down to two main questions. Can we do it with an acceptable level of risk? And can we safely manage the waste stream? The answer to both of those questions is an emphatic yes.

Everything else is politics and personalities and making nuclear power go away will not make an iota of difference on the nuclear weapon front. Either we grow up and get a clue, or the cockroaches take over.

[NNadir]

12. I too, am ambivalent about liquid sodium reactors. However the Russians have the most experience

with them.

They ran (as the Soviets) the BN-350 for about 20 years without many problems.

Liquid sodium fast reactors have been technically challenging, and they really haven't had an economic impetus to overcome those challenges, although the Japanese have restarted Monju, quietly, after the fire 14 years ago.

Japan, India, and China are all embracing fast reactors because of a lack of domestic supply of uranium. I think that the Indian program - which will bring a large LMFBR (500 MWe) on line in 2011, is the most interesting, because it is the second stage of a three stage program to move to a thorium cycle.

The real value of the fast spectrum as I see it is to burn minor actinides, make U-233, and put "twice through" plutonium to use making energy. But like you, I'd rather something other than liquid sodium as a coolant.