Skip to main content

The ups and down of the worlds nuclear technology continues to ride like a never ending wave. The latest is here.

CHINA:
Construction projects in China have moved forward with the dome of unit 1 of the Fangchenggang plant being lowered into place and heavy components for the primary reactor coolant system of the first EPR at Taishan have being delivered from France.
Fangchenggang dome (CNECC)

In an operation lasting just over two hours, the dome of the containment building of Fangchenggang 1 was raised 65 metres above the ground and lowered into place on 13 April, which officials said was 17 days ahead of schedule. The dome has a diameter of 37 metres, a height of 11 metres and a weight of almost 145 tonnes. It was put into place on top of the containment vessel walls at 7.10pm.

Construction of the first of two domestically-developed 1000 MWeCPR-1000 pressurized water reactors, which will form Phase I of the Fangchenggang nuclear power plant, began in July 2010. The plant - about 45 kilometres from the border with Vietnam - is a project of Guangxi Fangchenggang Nuclear Power Group, a joint venture between China Guangdong Nuclear Power Co and Guangxi Investment Group. The plant is planned to eventually house six units.

The cost of constructing Phase I is RMB 25 billion ($3.7 billion). Some 87% of the equipment to be used in the Phase I units is expected to be sourced from Chinese suppliers. The first unit is scheduled to begin operating in 2015, while the second will start up in 2016.

Taishan steam generator (Areva)

Areva announced that the first two steam generators and the pressurizer for unit 1 of the Taishan EPR power plant had been delivered to the construction site in China's Guangdong province.

The steam generators - 25 meters long and weighing 550 tonnes each - were manufactured at Areva's plant at Chalon-St Marcel. They were first transported to Fos-sur-Mer in southern France, before being shipped onwards by sea to the Taishan site where they are being kept in storage awaiting installation. The two remaining generators and the reactor pressure vessel internals are in transitand due to arrive in coming weeks.

Taishan 1 and 2 are the first two reactors based on Areva's EPR design to be built in China. The first two EPRs planned for the site form part of an €8 billion ($10.4 billion) contract signed by Areva and the Guangdong Nuclear Power Group (CGNPC) in November 2007. The Taishan project, 140 kilometres west of Hong Kong, is owned by the Guangdong Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture Company Limited, a joint venture between EDF (30%) and CGNPC.

First concrete was poured in October 2009, and unit 1 should begin operating in 2013, with unit 2 in 2014. The construction of two further EPRs at Taishan is expected to begin by 2015. [On time and at budget--DW]

More on China:

Unit 4 at China's Qinshan Phase II has begun commercial operation. The announcement marks the successful conclusion of the project to add two more indigenously-designed units at the plant in Zhejiang province.
Qinshan II 4 commercial operation (CNNC)
A ceremony held in unit 4's control room marks the reactor's entry into commercial operation (Image; CNNC)

At 9.05am on 8 April, the head of China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), Sun Qin, declared to workers and officials gathered in the unit's control room that the reactor had successfully begun commercial operation, 60 days ahead of schedule. He said that the Qinshan Phase II expansion project - the construction of units 3 and 4 - is 'now fully complete and commissioned.'

The reactor, a CNP-600, is a locally-designed and constructed two-loop pressurized water reactor (PWR) design rated at 650 MWe. It has taken about five years to build, with first concrete for the unit poured in January 2007. The unit was connected to the grid on 25 November 2011, becoming China's 15th operating nuclear power reactor.

CNNC also held a thematic briefing at the Zhejiang Grand Theatre to mark the completion of the Qinshan Phase II expansion project. The event was attended by senior company representatives, as well as local and national government figures. Mr Zubin, president of CNNC's plant construction subsidiary China Nuclear Engineering and Construction Corporation (CNECC), told those gathered that the project was of 'special significance' to CNNC as it had been carefully managed to help develop China's nuclear industry and had 'laid a good foundation' for the country's rapid development of nuclear power.

Qinshan Phase II is already home to three operating CNP-600s, built with a high degree of localisation. Units 1 and 2, comprising the first stage of Phase II, began operating in 2002 and 2004, respectively. Construction of the second stage was formally inaugurated at the end of April 2006, although first concrete had been poured for unit 3 the previous month. First concrete for unit 4 was poured in February 2007. Unit 3 entered commercial operation in October 2010.

Phase I of the plant saw the construction of a 300 MWe PWR start in 1985 - the first indigenously-designed Chinese nuclear power station to be built. Phase III consists of two 750 MWe pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs) supplied by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd and commissioned in 2002 and 2003.

The Qinshan plant now consists of seven reactors with a combined capacity of 4320 MWe. The plant is expected to generate some 34 billion kWh of electricity annually.

While current Chinese new build projects continue, approval of new plants remains suspended as officials respond to last year's Fukushima accident.

From: http://world-nuclear-news.org/

Saudi Arabia

This just in:

Saudi Arabia is looking to 2020 to have online its first nuclear power plant and potentially to 2030 to construct up to 60 reactors, a rather optimistic forecast for an already overburdened electrical grid system, according to a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Such a scenario means that from 2020 to 2030, up to six reactors would have to be built annually.

Saudi Arabia is just one of the Middle East oil producers – including Iran – that sees nuclear energy as an alternative approach to maintain economic growth considering what is viewed as a continually diminishing finite resource of oil.

The Saudis consume more than 1.5 million barrels of oil domestically a day at $4.50 a barrel. They would rather sell that oil on the international market, where it goes for some $125 a barrel.

Analysts say, however, that Saudi Arabia’s nuclear intentions are overly ambitious and they will have to resort more to an energy mix of alternative fuel sources as a substitute for fossil fuels.

Plans for coming up with alternative fuel sources to cope with an overworked electrical grid system are being drawn up at the recently constructed King Abdullah Center for Atomic and Renewable Energy, or KACARE.

A survey of sites to construct the nuclear reactors now is under way, as is a study for technology selection of other alternative energy sources.

Ground-breaking for the first nuclear reactor site is to take place in 2014. Not only is Saudi Arabia involved in developing nuclear energy for civilian use but so are Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Full: http://www.wnd.com/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

    by davidwalters on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:34:41 AM PDT

  •  What is up with the small modular reactors?..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy

    that effort seems to have fallen into the abyss.

  •  Any info on where China sources uranium? (0+ / 0-)

    Just curious because they are buying up other resources in Africa.  They are somewhat paranoid about depending on the west so I assume they wouldn't want to depend on Canada and Australia.  That leaves Russia, but iirc, they are also kind of unreliable because they are stockpiling.  After Kazakstan, that leaves Niger and Namibia.

    •  They "source" their uranium in occupied Tibet. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau

      Just like the Native Americans got screwed with uranium mining in the U.S., the Chinese screw Tibetans with uranium mining and pollution.

      But that's a part of the nuclear story that this diarist chooses to ignore.

      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

      by Lawrence on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:41:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Larry, Tibet does have a lot of prospects and (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        arroganceisstrength

        some of the PRC's uranium comes from there but China also has abundant resources outside of Tibet, in areas 'claimed' by Tibet, and through out the country.

        The leading countries for Chinese imports are:

        Australia
        Kazakstan
        Uzbekistan

        And also Russia.

        Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

        by davidwalters on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:00:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  HamdenRice, that's a EXCELLENT question (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HamdenRice, arroganceisstrength

      Right now, half of the 15 reactors online in the PRC get their uranium fuel from domestic resources. The rest comes from Kazakstan, Uzbeckistan and, Australia.

      there is a LOT more to this in this interesting paper which describes the entire fuel cycle:
      http://www.world-nuclear.org/...

      China expects to convert to mostly breeder reactors by the middle of the century. The first breeders will provide fuel to some of the LWRs. Other forms of uranium recovery are to be greatly expanded via MOX, reprocessing and various forms of breeding including LFTR.

      I think reprocessing is key as the bridge technology until breeders come one line in a big way (they are building a few big ones now).

      David

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:45:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the answer and link (0+ / 0-)

        The article also says:

        Increasingly, uranium is imported from Kazakhstan, Namibia, Niger and most recently Australia, with other sources progressively being added.
        I think the advantage for China of sourcing from Namibia and Niger is that they are relatively poor and weak countries, and would have little leverage compared to, say, Australia, although Namibia is closely tied to its stronger neighbor South Africa.  

        China's policy in Africa is really interesting, and I was fortunate to go to grad school in African studies when China was sending its first Africa specialists to US universities for African studies.  It was really interesting because this was in the early post Mao era and they were pretty ideological about third world unity and all that.  There is still some of that in their approach to development and trade in Africa which is growing economies there faster than a half century of western aid.

        •  I didn't know about Nambia. Interesting. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          arroganceisstrength

          Competing then with the French also in Niger which it's virtually locked up by French companies.

          Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

          by davidwalters on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:01:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Forgot about the French (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            arroganceisstrength

            Niger really has been completely dominated by France.  Overall, independence in French West Africa was never negotiated to be anything like independence of British West Africa from the UK -- it's always been more like a the US-Puerto Rico relationship.  Niger's government is even more dependent than most because almost all of its revenue comes from French payments for mining.

            That leaves Namibia in Africa, but China and South Africa are very close, so I assume Namibia is also.  Not only do they have a lot of trade and development deals, but there is a huge new immigration of Chinese to South Africa.

        •  Think of the possibilities (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy, arroganceisstrength
          It was really interesting because this was in the early post Mao era and they were pretty ideological about third world unity and all that.
          Yes, just think ... in a few years China can get much of the third world up to their own work standards:
          China has enjoyed a breakneck pace of economic growth recently, but this newfound prosperity is fueled mostly by coal. ... More than 1,600 people died last year from accidents in coalmines while trying to meet the ever-increasing energy needs of the country. The number has been reduced from 5,000 deaths five years ago, but it's still dangerously high compared to other countries around the world.
          If you can come up with statistics from China's nuclear development that rival the carnage that China's coal burning has managed to rack up, I'd love to hear it.

          Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
          -- Albert Einstein

          by bryfry on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:11:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What? (0+ / 0-)

            Complete non sequitur, but par for the course.

            •  I'm sorry (0+ / 0-)

              that it went completely over your head.

              A fool is nauseous, but a coward worse.
              -- Dryden

              by bryfry on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 11:09:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  100,000s+ died over Namibian uranium (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joieau

                The point is that your contribution is as useless and irrelevant as ever -- just more death tripping by one of the two nuclear extremists.

                If you want to play body counts of the past, which are completely irrelevant to how to solve the energy challenges of the future, then look no further than Namibia and the post cost of its uranium.

                Namibia was a colony of South Africa from the end of WWI to the late 80s and fought a long war against apartheid era South Africa.  Jimmy Carter was very close to a deal granting Namibia independence.  Then Reagan was elected and threw the US behind SA's efforts to hold onto Namibia, which prolonged the war for about 10 years.  

                The rationale was that Reagan and SA didn't want Namibia's uranium falling into the Soviets' hands.

                Unfortunately, it was impossible for SA to hold onto Namibia without also making war on southern Angola, which was where the Namibian liberation army operated from.

                In other words, to hold onto Namibian uranium, SA and the US plunged the entire subcontinent into a vicious, brutal decade of war that engulfed Namibia, Angola and Mozambique.  

                Hundreds of thousands died over the futile effort to keep the "commanests" from getting access to Namibian uranium.  

                This is as irrelevant to where China buys uranium in Africa today as is the casualty rate of coal miners in China.  But if I had to guess, I'm pretty sure more people have died over uranium in Namibia than in the coal mines of China -- by several orders of magnitude.

                Anyway thanks for proving you are simply incapable of discussing energy without crapping all over the diary and the comment threads.

                •  You'd be pretty wrong and you factually wrong on (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bryfry, arroganceisstrength

                  several accounts HamdR.

                  The war in southern Africa had little to do with uranium. The Russians were 100% self-relient on Uranium. All Nambian uranium because of sanctions went to SA.

                  The war was over Angolan indpendence, not Nambia. Nambia was "in the way" and that was about it. In fact it had more to do with the Canimba oil enclave owned by Angola. The US was never going to grant independence to Namibia as it wasn't a protectorate of it, only SA could claim than.

                  The US didn't want the left leaning MPLA to score a victory over it's client, UNITA (and to a lesser extent, the FLNA). The Cubans supported the MPLA by arriving to fight off the racist SA expeditionary forces. The Cubans are heros everywhere for this.

                  Trying to attribute the 100s of thousands who died in the Angolan civil war, and the SWAPO insurgency supported by the MPLA over "uranium" is simply a-historical.

                  Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                  by davidwalters on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 11:30:44 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You've got your history very garbled (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joieau, bincbom

                    I lived in South Africa in the late 80s and studied its politics extensively.  You're just plain wrong.

                    Angola was a lost cause for SA by the time of Jimmy Carter for SA.  MPLA had already won and SA had no intention or plan to prevent its continued independence.  It's war on Angola was entirely about holding on to Namibia.

                    All Nambian uranium because of sanctions went to SA.
                    That just proves my point.  It went to SA because SA controlled it as a colony and if it ceased to control it as a colony, Namibia would sell uranium to whoever it pleased, and it would not be pleased to sell it to SA as long as SA was still under apartheid.

                    Namibia is a vast empty country, and SA wasn't trying to hold on to it for the benefit of 2000 German farmers.  If you want to argue that other minerals were important, sure I'll grant that.  But at the time, SA, the US and most apologists for continued rule focused on Namibian uranium.  Remember, SA had the bomb as a "last resort" weapon against the "total onslaught" of black Africa.  Without Namibia, it had insufficient uranium resources.

                    I never said the US would grant independence to Namibia.  I said the Carter administration worked out a deal for Namibian independence.  You could even look it up.  It was at the United Nations and it was Resolution 435.  When Reagan was elected, the terms of that resolution were not implemented and SA stalled on implementing it for almost a decade until they lost military control of southern Angola (thanks to Cuba) and the liberation movement within South Africa reached clearly unstoppable proportions.

                    I enjoy your diaries on nuclear power, but on this issue of southern African politics, you are very, very misinformed.

                    •  Something's garbled all right (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      arroganceisstrength, Mcrab
                      But at the time, SA, the US and most apologists for continued rule focused on Namibian uranium. Remember, SA had the bomb as a "last resort" weapon against the "total onslaught" of black Africa. Without Namibia, it had insufficient uranium resources.
                      And what does this have the first thing to do with generating electricity?!!

                      SA's one and only nuclear plant didn't go online until 1984, and it imported the fuel for this plant.

                      The rationale was that Reagan and SA didn't want Namibia's uranium falling into the Soviets' hands.
                      Meanwhile, today the world's largest producer of uranium is Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. Sorry, but that tale is just a bit hard to swallow.

                      A fool is nauseous, but a coward worse.
                      -- Dryden

                      by bryfry on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 04:11:08 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The point is-your points are irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

                        I suppose the plant that went online in 1984 simply magically appeared without years of research and development.  Its nuclear program began in 1948 and its uranium enrichment program in 1967.

                        The point is that your points ARE irrelevant.  Each post is more irrelevant than the prior one.

                        •  What you're ignoring is not "irrelevant" (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          arroganceisstrength
                          I suppose the plant that went online in 1984 simply magically appeared without years of research and development.
                          There was no magic involved. South Africa's electric utility, Eskom, simply purchased the two reactors from the French, lock, stock, and barrel. These reactors were not designed or built by an indigenous nuclear industry.

                          South Africa abandoned its civilian nuclear programs in the mid-60's. By 1970, all of South Africa's nuclear-related efforts were directed toward secretly enriching uranium to build bombs. They had even given up efforts to build a plutonium-generating reactor.

                          There wasn't any significant research and development done in South Africa on civilian power reactors until PBMR came along, well after the country had given up its nuclear weapons and signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

                          You must have been home sick the day that your "African studies" class covered South Africa's nuclear programs.

                          A fool is nauseous, but a coward worse.
                          -- Dryden

                          by bryfry on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 04:44:59 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Wikipedia is your friend (0+ / 0-)

                            You're not even making sense.  You don't need a graduate degree to know that SA's energy policy and defense policy both required access to Namibian minerals.  After the west threatened them with sanctions and Angola cut off oil, they decided that nuclear energy was important for areas distant from their coal deposits.

                            At any rate, each of your comments is increasingly weird and irrelevant.  The diary is about China and my comments are about China's inter-dependence with Africa.  Your comments are all over the place ranging from mine accident rates in Chinese coal mines (utterly irrelevant) to the counter factual ("South Africa abandoned its civilian nuclear programs in the mid-60's").  Your comments aren't even consistent with each other, let alone with what those of us in the real world call "a calendar."   Obviously, you're  disagreeing just to disagree without actually having a point.  

                          •  The point is (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            arroganceisstrength

                            that you're trying to conflate South Africa's military program to enrich uranium to build a nuclear bomb with its two electricity-generating reactors, which is technology that SA purchased from abroad. And you're doing a piss-poor job of doing so.

                            If my comments are all over the place, that is because you keep changing the subject, which is a common tactic that is used when one is losing an argument.

                            The ignorance that you have displayed about South Africa's nuclear programs is breathtaking. That you claim to be some sort of expert on the subject is even more bizarre.

                            To think that you went to graduate school only to claim that you rely on Wikipedia for your knowledge. It's sad, really.

                            Did you really not know where South Africa acquired its two and only nuclear reactors?

                            A fool is nauseous, but a coward worse.
                            -- Dryden

                            by bryfry on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 05:30:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your comments are completely incoherent (0+ / 0-)

                            But why even argue with you -- when you are arguing with yourself into total incoherence as in:

                            SA's one and only nuclear plant didn't go online until 1984, and it imported the fuel for this plant.
                            versus:
                            South Africa abandoned its civilian nuclear programs in the mid-60's. By 1970, all of South Africa's nuclear-related efforts were directed toward secretly enriching uranium to build bombs.
                            Dude, try to learn how to read a calendar.  You're not making one bit of sense.  As for Wikipedia, I'm saying that obviously you did not study South African history or politics, but you don't have to in order to realize how preposterous the things you are writing are.  All you need to do is learn how to read a calendar and how to look up stuff on Wikipedia -- which sadly, seems beyond your capability.  So, of course, I'm not going to suggest any advanced sources to you.
                          •  I'm sorry that you have so much trouble (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            arroganceisstrength

                            with reading comprehension. I'm starting to get the feeling that you might not be all that bright.

                            After all, it appears that you cannot tell the difference between an indigenous industry and imported technology.

                            To this day, South Africa does not have a single company that can build a new nuclear reactor. This is why all recent plans for expanding its use of nuclear power have focused on, once again, importing reactors from abroad, probably from the Japanese or the French again.

                            A fool is nauseous, but a coward worse.
                            -- Dryden

                            by bryfry on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 12:46:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dude, you're sounding increasingly pathetic (0+ / 0-)

                            Shall we review?  

                            You wrote:

                            SA's one and only nuclear plant didn't go online until 1984, and it imported the fuel for this plant.
                            and you also wrote:
                            South Africa abandoned its civilian nuclear programs in the mid-60's. By 1970, all of South Africa's nuclear-related efforts were directed toward secretly enriching uranium to build bombs.
                            So how is this possible?  They ended their civilian nuclear energy program and then magically 20 years later they put their civilian nuclear generator on line?

                            Plus, you can't tell the difference between uranium processing (a technology the South Africans have mastered) and building full fledged generator-reactors (a technology they understand but still import even though they have an indigenous reactor and enrichment capacity.)  

                            Basically, your posts make absolutely no sense whatsoever.  You're like Nnadir without any factually interesting empirical information -- all the stupid snark and pointless disagreement without any factual foundation.

                          •  Um...um...um... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            arroganceisstrength, bryfry

                            what have we here?

                            An obsessive lightweight poorly informed member of the ignorance squad at "Nuclear Free DKos" talking about...um...to use this curious locution "factually interesting empirical information?"

                            Um...um...um...

                            Any person who was in fact equipped to define empiricsm might immediately recognize the "interesting" fact that 3.3 million people die each year from air pollution and still we have the members of the "Nuclear Free DKos"set of bumbling obsessives running around muttering that nuclear energy - which would need to kill as many people as World War II killed every 15 years to be as dangerous as air pollution - is, in their fanciful dogma at least - "unsafe."

                            One cannot be required to listen too carefully to discern the fact that anti-nukes carry on as if 45-50 million people die every decade from nuclear energy.

                            In their universe, everyone worth caring about who died in the first decade of the twentieth century from seismic events died from the reactors at Fukushima.

                            Do tell.  Is it "empirically" true that the vast majority of Japanese citizens who died last March as a result of the tsunami and eathquake actually died from radiation leaked from destroyed reactors?

                            I have an idea.   Why don't you use a dictionary to find out what "empiricism" is?   Dictionaries can be very useful things.   If you don't own one, or don't know how to use online ones, go to your local library and the librarian can help you.    If you actually check out what words mean, there's less chance of muttering a malapropism if you actually know what words mean

                            It is generally true that the entire membership of "nuclear free DKos" consists of mindless obsessives with very selective attention to match very poor rhetorical abilities.

                            I find it amusing too, that there is at least one of them who consistently mutters my name - certainly unprompted by me.

                            Can you get a life?

                            No?

                            Well, that's unsurprising...

                            Everytime I think that anti-nuke "classics" couldn't be more poorly informed, I am surprised to find that they're even sillier than I thought, and believe me, I have never found a reason to have anything but an extremely low starting opinion of anti-nukes in general.

                            In general, an anti-nuke trying to discuss nuclear fuel intelligently is rather like having Henry Kissinger give a lecture on the wonderful success of the Nixon administration in preserving human rights in Chile.

                            As usual - par for the course - what we have here is yet another case of the pixilated membership of "Nuclear Free DKos" holding forth on a topic that he knows nothing about.

                            Have a nice day tomorrow.

                          •  Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice! (0+ / 0-)

                            I was warned not to mention his name and release him from imprisonment in HR hell!  

                            Btw, I didn't read your comment -- it's just more of the usual irrelevant garbage from our resident delusional inmate who even the editor feels free to insult for stupidity.

                          •  Nnnnaaaaddddiiir's here! (0+ / 0-)

                            It's showtime!!!!!

                             Hahahahaha!!!

                            (In case you missed the culture reference because you spend all your free time in the 'chemistry library.'

                          •  Incredible (0+ / 0-)

                            The stupidity that pervades your comments is breathtaking.

                            Plus, you can't tell the difference between uranium processing (a technology the South Africans have mastered) and building full fledged generator-reactors (a technology they understand but still import even though they have an indigenous reactor and enrichment capacity.)
                            It appears that you don't know what the word indigenous means. I suggest that you buy a good dictionary and try using it sometime. Where is this "indigenous" reactor?

                            Their only operating research reactor, SAFARI-1, was provided by the Allis Chalmers Corporation, a US company, in 1965 as part of the "Atoms for Peace" program. It ran on highly enriched uranium provided by the US until 1975, when the US cut off South Africa because of their weapons program.

                            Their only operating electricity-producing nuclear plant has two reactors, Koeberg 1 and 2, which were purchased from Framatome SAS, a French company. These reactors are a French design based on technology developed by Westinghouse. There is nothing South African about them except their location just outside Cape Town.

                            None of these reactors would qualify as "indigenous."

                            Of course my posts would make no sense to someone with such a limited vocabulary. Remember, a dictionary can really help you with those hard-to-understand big words.

                            Btw, I didn't read your [NNadir's] comment
                            That's rather childish of you, but I understand. NNadir often uses big words too.

                            It appears that you didn't read many of my comments as well.

                            A fool is nauseous, but a coward worse.
                            -- Dryden

                            by bryfry on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 04:52:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about (0+ / 0-)

                            You are demonstrating that you don't know the difference between a reactor and a commercial nuclear powered generator.

                            Of course, South Africa has the indigenous capacity to build a reactor.  Plus, you still seem unable to read a calendar and deal with dates.

                            Yes, the first reactors were purchased.  They proved they have the capacity to construct research reactors when they built Safari-2.

                            They also enriched their own uranium because the US did not want them to have the bomb, which they acquired without US help or even knowledge (until the Soviets tipped the US off).

                            Dude, you're in way over your head and simply don't know what you're talking about.  Moreover, from your profile it's clear that you don't care that you don't know what you're talking about because, as your profile states, your main point for being on line is to be, in your own words, an "asshole."

                            You're just goofing around with words and concepts you don't understand.  How old are you anyway? Fourteen?

                            Go away, this forum is for grownups.

                          •  SAFARI-2? (0+ / 0-)

                            Are you kidding me?!

                            I realize that Google can be your friend, but you have to actually read the stuff that you find with it.

                            SAFARI-2 was a complete failure, which was shut down shortly after it started operation. I mentioned it indirectly earlier when I said that, by 1970, South Africa "had even given up efforts to build a plutonium-generating reactor."

                            How you confuse this with a civilian nuclear program is something that makes me wonder if you know what the word civilian means.

                            If you would put as much effort into actually reading my comments as you do into trying to make yourself look like a fool, then you would have caught this. You might also have realized that I've said all along that South Africa had developed enrichment technology, which was done entirely for their weapons program.

                            Oh, but please keep lecturing me about what I "don't understand." I find it hilarious, since in this entire exchange, I am the only one who has introduced any factual information whatsoever. All you have done is to express over and over, in no uncertain terms, how you don't understand what I am saying. Talk about ironic.

                            A fool is nauseous, but a coward worse.
                            -- Dryden

                            by bryfry on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 06:20:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  At least you're making some progress (0+ / 0-)

                            You admit that Safari 2 existed.  I guess that's some progress.  You've now contradicted yourself again by admitting that indeed, SA built its own reactor.

                            But your overall coherence remains at a depressingly low level

                          •  Sure sport (0+ / 0-)

                            If that's what you want to believe, then be my guest.

                            This has been fun, but I've finally concluded that you are actually too stupid for me to continue to correspond with further.

                            Perhaps one day you'll actually read the comments that I have posted here, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

                            A fool is nauseous, but a coward worse.
                            -- Dryden

                            by bryfry on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:59:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Hamden, question.. (0+ / 0-)

      I'd like to recc your comment, but there is no "recc" button displayed. Why is that? Does the "recc" button go away a certain number of hours after the comment is made? If so, bummer.

  •  Where is the news on Fukushima? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau
    •  That's not news (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arroganceisstrength, ebohlman

      That's just random Internet tin-foil-hat nonsense.

      If you like "enenews.com," then you'll love

      http://www.latest-ufo-sightings.net

      http://www.911truth.org

      http://www.generationrescue.org

      http://www.freepsychicnetwork.com

      etc.

      Enjoy, but don't forget your tin-foil hat!

      A fool is nauseous, but a coward worse.
      -- Dryden

      by bryfry on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 03:42:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hmmm, when people go to the anti-nuclear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bryfry

      hysteria diaries and try to insert facts, we are told that is inappropriate.

      so why is the reverse not equally true?

      •  FYI: This is a diary on nuclear news.. (0+ / 0-)

        and some very important and industry-changing news is coming out of Fukushima and Japan.

        •  I've been restrained in trying to introduce (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryfry

          "reality based" posts into your side's diaries of late.

          But if you don't want to reciprocate, maybe I'll reconsider that  . .. .

        •  BINCOM...contrary to your belief, (3+ / 0-)

          the world of nuclear doesn't revolve around Fukushima, and in fact it's moved on.

          I TOOK YOUR ADVICE and titled this Diary "NEW Nuclear News". See "NEW". Fukushima is hardly "new". This diary is about how the worlds largest carbon-free technology has moved on from Fukushima.

          So this is about the NEW plans being developed. Fukushima only figures into it from the point of view of what NOT to do. This means NOT siting plants in tsunami zones; building plants with hardened auxilary power equipment; building reactors with passive cooling and so on.

          David

          Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

          by davidwalters on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 07:28:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Anti-Planets Need to WAKE UP (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PreciousLittle

            Fukushima is a giant, slowly-unfolding long-term nuclear disaster.

            Every single day is a new day.  Every single day new details about the conditions of the melted fuel, decimated reactors, and obliterated buildings are revealed.

            Every single day new implications are discovered.  Fukushima is "New Nuclear News" and will continue to be for many coming years.

            For example, how long will it be before Reactor #3 can be approached by human beings?  What will be learned when that occurs.

            Even the Anti-Planets have to agree that the Fukushima disaster is fascinating, and every single week we learn more.

            •  And yet.... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bryfry, arroganceisstrength

              Nuclear power will remain important for Japan's energy  
              from: Kyodo

              LONDON — Nuclear power will continue to satisfy a "significant proportion" of the Japan's electricity demand in the future, despite the nuclear accident caused by last year's disasters, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, an economic research body affiliated with the Economist magazine.

              Martin Adams, energy editor for the think tank, said he detects a more favorable climate toward nuclear power in Japan and a realization that, given the country's scarce natural resources, nuclear energy has a role to play.

              He said use of nuclear power in the country will remain at low levels for the next two years due to a mixture of continued inspections of reactors, "foot-dragging on restarts" and the likely decommissioning of some aging reactors.

              "But we expect the proportion of nuclear in the energy mix to rise," Adams said. "It is likely, in most cases, that existing nuclear plants will resume operations, although we foresee a gradual drop in the reactor numbers over the course of the decade and beyond as old reactors are shut down and decommissioned.

              "Electricity generation from nuclear will not therefore recover to pre-Fukushima levels," he added. "Our forecast is for 30.6 gigawatts of nuclear capacity in 2020, down from 47.7 gigawatts in 2010 — a significant revision from the 61.2 gigawatts we forecast before Fukushima."

              To make up for the shortfall in nuclear power, the Economist Intelligence Unit anticipates that Japan's demand for natural gas will double between 2011 and 2020.

              Petroleum products will remain the biggest source of energy, representing about 45 percent of domestic energy consumption.

              Coal consumption, meanwhile, will climb by nearly 20 percent over the course of this decade, according to the forecasts, making up about 20 percent of total energy consumption.

              The EIU's report on the future of Japan's energy requirements concludes, "For many, the Fukushima nuclear emergency revealed the dangers of relying on atomic energy.

              Yet, in the longer view, the dramatic events of March 2011 may well be noted for setting Japan on a less green, less energy-secure path."

              Since the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear accident in March 2011, nearly all of the country's 54 reactors have been shut down due to safety reviews. The government is currently reviewing the use of nuclear power as part of its energy policy.

              The EIU, based in London, provides forecasting and analysis.

              Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

              by davidwalters on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 08:29:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Japan: 15 Reactors Shut Down Due To Quake Damage (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PreciousLittle

    It seemed like it HAD to be true.  Probably, Japan was teetering on the brink last March, with other reactors besides Fukushima near meltdown as well.

    This article appeared in the Deutsche Welle:

    Japanese government criticized for downplaying nuclear disaster

  •  Japan: 14 OTHER Reactors in EXTREMELY Bad Shape (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PreciousLittle

    No meltdowns outside of Fukushima Daiichi - yet.  But 14 other reactor sites in Japan were badly damaged by the earthquakes and continue to be in "extreme condition":

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    If you don't speak Japanese, click the "CC" button on the menu bar for English subtitles.

  •  Some entirely unsurprising news from Switzerland (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryfry

    The decision to not replace the existing nuclear powerplants with new at the end of their lives will cost billions and add a lot of CO2 according to the Swiss Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications:
    http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/...

    As a sidenote, apparently not even Greenpeace is beyond using nuclear power in the form of two small PWRs when it suits them:
    http://www.projectthinice.org/...

  •  US Govt Says: Nukes Too Risky (0+ / 0-)

    "It may not be possible to charge borrowers the full cost of a loan guarantee because of the high degree of uncertainty involved. When adverse selection is severe, attempts to offset expected losses with an increase in fees can backfire because the higher fees drive away creditworthy borrowers, making it impossible to provide a loan guarantee that does not involve a subsidy."

    Link

  •  Fuk Lead Investigator: Nuclear Lava Melted Thru (0+ / 0-)

    World is ignoring most important lesson from Fukushima nuclear disaster:

    "[...] Yet another false assumption involved the containment vessel, an invention of nuclear engineers to assure nearby inhabitants that, if there were an unimaginable accident and fission products leaked out of the core, they would be confined inside and not leak out into the external environment. This long-held myth was also broken by Fukushima No.1, as the molten fuel dropped through the pressure vessel and the “nuclear lava” melted the bottom of the containment vessel, leaking a huge amount of fission gasses and particles to the air and water. [...]"

    Investigators still have not located the coriums - what they call the "nuclear lava" in this article.  Meanwhile the fresh fission products from Fukushima continue to blanket the world with radioactive fallout, observed even in the US as recently as last week.

    •  Bin, read this again: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bryfry

      "as the molten fuel dropped through the pressure vessel and the “nuclear lava” melted the bottom of the containment vessel". It's IN containment. That's the idea. Sheeesh!

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 02:00:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Japan: NO Nuclear Power Starting May 6th (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sure we all remember the dark tales of rolling blackouts and other measures that would be required in Japan until the nuclear power plants could be restarted.  That turned out to be a myth.

    What is real is that the people of Japan aren't going to tolerate nuclear power plant restarts.  Starting May 6th the entire country of Japan will be operating on non-nuclear power.  On that day Japan will awaken to a brighter future.

    Mayday for Japan’s nuclear industry

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site