Posted on Dec 7, 2023
World’s first fourth-generation nuclear reactor goes online in China
3.97K
20
9
6
6
0
For those who like to badmouth green energy initiatives because China is building all those coal power plants.
World’s first fourth-generation nuclear reactor goes online in China
Posted from scmp.com
Nuclear
Energy
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
I don't like nuclear reactors because they are dangerous and costly And the waste is always a problem. Chernobyl and Fukushima are good examples why - as are reactors that are, have been, might be targets during armed conflict like in Ukraine, and a missile is said to have landed near a facility in Israel recently.
However, when Fukushima happened, I read that most of the reactors in U.S. were as old as Fukushima and built by the same company. I don't know which generation they are, but it was past time, then, to consider retiring them or replacing them. It seems that 4th generation plants would be preferable to the old worn out 1st or 2nd gen maybe original nuclear plants. And with nothing else seems to be on the horizon to replace them in making as much power . . . replacement seems advisable . . . unless all renewable resources together can do an adequate job. They probably can for residential areas. But maybe not for industry. I simply do not know.
Building nuclear plants is a huge drain on utility customers. and the cost continues to increase. There is one in AZ that does not produce power for us here in NM, that we pay for with our monthly utility bill here in NM which is exorbitant. I hail from the PNW where hydropower reigns and is not nearly as costly. However, There was a similar high cost nuclear reactor built in Washington state which increased the utility bill of residential customers. When I see that people want to dismantle dam I can understand why however where is juice for the grid going to be produced for the population without a periodic depopulation events. I'm sorry to have to say China was right about limiting how many children a couple can have. It is preferable to depopulation by pandemic, war, famine . . . imho.
Hanford is also in PNW, probably 1st gen, and a superfund cleanup site since 89 with no end in sight. The waste is always the problem. Clean up at Hanford had barely started after nearly 30 years when in 2017 there was another catastrophe there. The region may never be open to the public again.
WIPP in NM, for nuclear waste disposal/storage is not built in a geologically stable area, like it would have been in Nevada. More strings were pulled in congress by Nevada so WIPP ended up in NM with the promise of no high level nuclear waste being dumped there. That promise was only hot air, and didn't last long. Nor did it take long for a leak to develop (after about 15 years). The waste at storage sites is always a problem and transportation of it to storage sites is also. I read the government produced geological analysis of the WIPP site, and the independent research geological analysis of the site. They were quite different from one another. Simply knowing the basic geology of the area it was clear the region was not a good location. The independent report confirmed that. The government report ignored it.
Clearly nuclear facilities are fraught with difficulties and high cost at every stage, as is waste storage and transportation. But can all the other renewable energy sources, together, produce all that is needed? Newer possibilities like Fusion, zero point energy . . . are apparently not at a stage of being commercially viable.
China's 4th generation reactors are described in an interesting way: "Fourth-generation reactors aim to limit the environmental impact, nuclear waste burden, risk of nuclear meltdown, and opportunities for nuclear proliferation, according to the Gen IV International Forum (GIF), an international cooperative framework of major nuclear nations."
However, when Fukushima happened, I read that most of the reactors in U.S. were as old as Fukushima and built by the same company. I don't know which generation they are, but it was past time, then, to consider retiring them or replacing them. It seems that 4th generation plants would be preferable to the old worn out 1st or 2nd gen maybe original nuclear plants. And with nothing else seems to be on the horizon to replace them in making as much power . . . replacement seems advisable . . . unless all renewable resources together can do an adequate job. They probably can for residential areas. But maybe not for industry. I simply do not know.
Building nuclear plants is a huge drain on utility customers. and the cost continues to increase. There is one in AZ that does not produce power for us here in NM, that we pay for with our monthly utility bill here in NM which is exorbitant. I hail from the PNW where hydropower reigns and is not nearly as costly. However, There was a similar high cost nuclear reactor built in Washington state which increased the utility bill of residential customers. When I see that people want to dismantle dam I can understand why however where is juice for the grid going to be produced for the population without a periodic depopulation events. I'm sorry to have to say China was right about limiting how many children a couple can have. It is preferable to depopulation by pandemic, war, famine . . . imho.
Hanford is also in PNW, probably 1st gen, and a superfund cleanup site since 89 with no end in sight. The waste is always the problem. Clean up at Hanford had barely started after nearly 30 years when in 2017 there was another catastrophe there. The region may never be open to the public again.
WIPP in NM, for nuclear waste disposal/storage is not built in a geologically stable area, like it would have been in Nevada. More strings were pulled in congress by Nevada so WIPP ended up in NM with the promise of no high level nuclear waste being dumped there. That promise was only hot air, and didn't last long. Nor did it take long for a leak to develop (after about 15 years). The waste at storage sites is always a problem and transportation of it to storage sites is also. I read the government produced geological analysis of the WIPP site, and the independent research geological analysis of the site. They were quite different from one another. Simply knowing the basic geology of the area it was clear the region was not a good location. The independent report confirmed that. The government report ignored it.
Clearly nuclear facilities are fraught with difficulties and high cost at every stage, as is waste storage and transportation. But can all the other renewable energy sources, together, produce all that is needed? Newer possibilities like Fusion, zero point energy . . . are apparently not at a stage of being commercially viable.
China's 4th generation reactors are described in an interesting way: "Fourth-generation reactors aim to limit the environmental impact, nuclear waste burden, risk of nuclear meltdown, and opportunities for nuclear proliferation, according to the Gen IV International Forum (GIF), an international cooperative framework of major nuclear nations."
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/04/ [login to see] /companies-say-theyre-closing-in-on-nuclear-fusion-as-an-energy-source-will-it-wo
Companies say they're closing in on nuclear fusion as an energy source. Will it work?
For decades, government scientists have toiled away trying to make nuclear fusion work. Will commercial companies sprint to the finish?
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
No contemporary energy source is as environmentally irresponsible, imposes such a high liability on taxpayers, or is as dangerous as nuclear power - thinking in terms of Russia and when its nuke plant blew a fuse.
Nuclear is not a "green" energy just like Cobalt and Lithium mining is not green energy.
However consider that notion is coming from the same mindset that in side AOC's brain I get it.
Nuclear is not a "green" energy just like Cobalt and Lithium mining is not green energy.
However consider that notion is coming from the same mindset that in side AOC's brain I get it.
(3)
(0)
SPC David S.
Waste from a coal plant is considered safe vs radioactive wastes such as uranium mill tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. These materials can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years so just in operation alone nuke plants present a greater environmental hazard.
To further explain my logic way this is not good for America or the world Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and is still used by some countries to make nuclear weapons - like China. The Pentagon estimates that China is aiming for about 1,500 total nuclear warheads in their arsenal by 2035. The US and Russia make up the bulk of the world's nuclear arms but now China seems to want to cut in and dance with the devil as well.
https://www.spf.org/spf-china-observer/en/eisei/eisei-detail004.html
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/ [login to see] /new-pentagon-report-claims-china-now-has-over-500-operational-nuclear-warheads
To further explain my logic way this is not good for America or the world Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and is still used by some countries to make nuclear weapons - like China. The Pentagon estimates that China is aiming for about 1,500 total nuclear warheads in their arsenal by 2035. The US and Russia make up the bulk of the world's nuclear arms but now China seems to want to cut in and dance with the devil as well.
https://www.spf.org/spf-china-observer/en/eisei/eisei-detail004.html
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/ [login to see] /new-pentagon-report-claims-china-now-has-over-500-operational-nuclear-warheads
(0)
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
SPC David S. I hear you, also remember that I was trained on how to fix those nuclear warheads, so I have a unique perspective on how dangerous they are/aren't.
(1)
(0)
SPC Lyle Montgomery
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - I have worked on Power plants for my entire career. I have worked on refuewling outage on neuclear plants and shutdown outages on coal and natural gas plants. Its not a democrat or republican issue, but simple facts, If a coal plant blows up, it will destroy some acres wheras if a neuckear power plant goes critical and melts down it will ruin several miles of area. Fortunately we havent a severe meltdown but Japan and the Ukraine have and we still don't know all the results from those problems. I'm not down on neuclear power, but still wouldn't call it safe.
(1)
(0)
MSG Billy Brumfield
I notice nobody is bringing up 3 mile island when they talk about disasters. Is it because it was brought under control without a major catastrophe? It was 1st generation at the time of the accident, was it not? Unit 1 shut down 4 yrs ago.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google