• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

China Plans To Build 32 New Nuclear Plants

muggle

New Member
http://pepei.pennnet.com/News/Display_News_Story.cfm?Section=WireNews&SubSection=HOME&NewsID=131524

China plans to build 32 new Nuclear Plants in the nest 15 years. Building those plants may significantly help their energy problem.

What is your opinion on whether or not more Nuclear Plants should be built in your Country to help alleviate the energy problem. In the U.S. Duke Power recently announced plans to build a Nuclear Plant which would be the first built in many, many, years if it in fact goes forward.
 

SFG75

Well-Known Member
The output of energy and ability to have us independent of oil are the main strengths of it. I'm not for it as of course, disposing of the stuff can be quite a dilemma. I remember when a Reagan administration official wanted to sink barrels of the stuff to the bottom of the ocean. According to him, the pressure would keep the stuff near the bottom and everything else would be fine above it.:eek: A county in my state had a knock-down fight over a low-level waste plant. The state ended up paying four other states involved in a compact to not ship their waste to our state as we agreed we would do under a contract with the other states. To me, alternative energy resources are available, it's just a matter of devoting resources to develop them. If the government issued contracts for corporations to develop more efficient solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power, we would be in much better shape. In relation to foreign policy, I'm all for China's growth and empowerment. The U.S. needs a check to it's unbridled power in the international arena.
 

novella

Active Member
I think there are two concerns with this development:

China is arming itself at an alarming, accelerated rate, partnering with Russia for these energy deals, and allowing zero interference from outside agencies. What guarantee does anyone have that stockpiled uranium in China would not be used for weapons at a later date?

Second, China has a terrible and dangerous record with pollutants, to the extent that there are many large geographic areas that are dangerous to breathe in and where the water is a health risk. They propose nuclear energy as a cleaner alternative to the fossil fuels they are burning now, but given their record and the vulnerability nuclear power plants continue to have, even under secure conditions, how much risk will there be if numerous plants are developed? Just thinking of the Chernoybyl incident, even now, makes me shiver at the possibilities.
 

veggiedog

New Member
I don't like the idea of building more nuclear power plants as an energy solution because it creates more pollution than all alternative energy sources combined. I'm not exactly an environmentalist, but I think there are other ways to achieve equal energy potential, such as solar and wind power. Even if those are more costly at first, nuclear power is much more costly in long run in terms of maintanence and air contamination. It can also be costly in terms of human life, such as with Chernobyl, as Novella mentioned. They are very volatile and can get easily out of hand.

I wouldn't really worry about China developing nukes, because if there was a war even today, we'd be dead. China has thousands of nukes and is not afraid to use them. I suppose they do have as much right as America to own nuclear weapons, considering they are one of the five countries with veto power on Security Council and they are allowed legal ownership according to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Maybe America should be an example the world and dismantle it's nukes first. Our nation is the one the rest of the world despises, after all. :D
 

StillILearn

New Member
And they kin jest go on a head and put all that there nucular waist on a trane and ship it acrost the cuntry to Yucca Mtn. What the hey, you only live oncet, and Yucca Mtn is already all dug out and all. And its in Nevada.
 

veggiedog

New Member
StillILearn said:
And they kin jest go on a head and put all that there nucular waist on a trane and ship it acrost the cuntry to Yucca Mtn. What the hey, you only live oncet, and Yucca Mtn is already all dug out and all. And its in Nevada.

:eek:
Very nice SIL! :D
 

StillILearn

New Member
Some day (if you want to read a really, really, truly, honestly scary story) google Yucca Mountain.

wikiyucca

I think they should issue little red hard hats to all of us out here. (Yucca Mountain is pretty much a done deal, as they have already spent 70 zillion dollars on it)
 

SFG75

Well-Known Member
StillILearn said:
Some day (if you want to read a really, really, truly, honestly scary story) google Yucca Mountain.

wikiyucca

I think they should issue little red hard hats to all of us out here. (Yucca Mountain is pretty much a done deal, as they have already spent 70 zillion dollars on it)

If it will create jobs, who will mind a third eye or a sixth toe? ;)
 

Libre

Member
SFG75 said:
If the government issued contracts for corporations to develop more efficient solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power, we would be in much better shape.
In my view, even if solar and wind power were 100% efficient, they do not - and never will - have the capability of powering large population centers. It would be like trying to power your car by turning around and blowing, or sticking your arms out the windows and using a breast stroke on the air.
Geothermal is somewhat undeveloped, true, and hydroelectric *does* power population centers, but of course, you need massive quantities of moving water for that, and there is only 1 Niagra Falls. It's not like you can just put a hydroelectric plant just anyplace. And, don't imagine that diverting all that water from the river into turbines has zero impact on the enviromment.
As far as China - and the rest of the world for that matter - our energy needs for billions of people can't be met by solar power. It sure would be nice to go back to being flower people and all join hands and sing Kumbaya and We Shall Overcome. But, we want our cars and our planes and our factories and our computers, and our millions of other devices, and until sombody comes up with a non-polluting source of power on a huge scale, we're going to be burning something or creating nuclear waste.
 

muggle

New Member
Diablo Canyon, a Nuclear Plant in California. I had a small group of 40 people assigned there to help get the unit online. Eventually I spent 3 months at Diablo myself sorting out a few problems. It is about a 10 mile drive from the security entrance to the plant site where you go through another security check. The 10 mile drive is absolutely beautiful. :)

sevu5e.jpg
 

Miss Shelf

New Member
I've long supported nuclear energy---IF the plant is run by qualified people and not Homer Simpsons. I know that's unrealistic and there are always going to be human errors, so the indursty needs to keep the plants computer-controlled with heavy-duty firewalls to protect from hackers. I know nothing is foolproof, though.

Let's face it folks-the day scientists made two atoms collide is the day the end of mankind began. I don't worry about possible Chernobyls-when (not if) it happens again is just a matter of time, so I enjoy each day as it comes.
 

SFG75

Well-Known Member
Miss Shelf said:
I've long supported nuclear energy---IF the plant is run by qualified people and not Homer Simpsons. I know that's unrealistic and there are always going to be human errors, so the indursty needs to keep the plants computer-controlled with heavy-duty firewalls to protect from hackers. I know nothing is foolproof, though.

Let's face it folks-the day scientists made two atoms collide is the day the end of mankind began. I don't worry about possible Chernobyls-when (not if) it happens again is just a matter of time, so I enjoy each day as it comes.

Therein lies the problem. It's not a matter of if, but rather, when. Chernobyl occured because of poorly trained people running a nuclear plant. It didn't help that the plan was located in a government run society. In our own society, I foresee the day where the government contracts out to private companies who promise to run it as cheaply as possible. We're bound to have another three mile island, though I'd say the fact that we have yet to have one is due to some good things that we are doing now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.;) With that being said, I don't mind it, just as long as it is in your backyard and not mine.:D
 

Crystal

kickbox
To make bombs at her own house's backyard seems to be better (though I haven't figured out in which sense it is better) to invade other's house (masked by a big politic term) for oil.
 

Miss Shelf

New Member
Y a know, if you want to sleep at night, you shouldn't read stuff like that. Sometimes burying your head in the dirt is a good thing. :eek:
 

muggle

New Member
Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen. It did not have a containment vessel and was a bad design by the Russians. Unfortunately, also, its operators were poorly trained.

Three Mile Island was really the only serious accident to happen in the U.S. and even then there were no injuries or deaths associated with the accident. The Containment structure functioned as designed and prevented radiation from escaping into the environment.

Japan, France, Britain, Russia, and the U.S. now re-cycle the fuel greatly reducing the amount of waste needing treatment and disposal. Coal plants are the real danger, IMO, as their emissions in the U.S. alone are equal to the exhaust from 300 million automobiles.
 

StillILearn

New Member
muggle, what are your objections to putting our fierce focus on alternatives to fossil fuel and nuclear power? Wind, geothermal, solar?
 

muggle

New Member
StillILearn said:
muggle, what are your objections to putting our fierce focus on alternatives to fossil fuel and nuclear power? Wind, geothermal, solar?
I have no objections. However, wind and solar are intermittent and unpredictable and simply cannot replace big baseload units such as Coal, Hydroelectric, and Nuclear.... I am all for the alternative sources but, unfortunately they cannot supply our needs. I am also for conservation.
 
Top