Peak Oil News

 

  Login or Register
 
Menu
 News
 Search
 Topics
 Stories Archive
 Submit News
 Discussions
 Code of Conduct
 Forums
 Forums Search
 Last 24 Hours
 PO 24hrs
 Peak Blog
 Resources
 About Us
 Downloads
 Web Links
 PeakWiki
 PeakPortal
 Focus Search
 Peak TV
 Peak Oil Boston
 Members
 Your Account
 Members List
 Ignore List
 JOIN!
 Private Messages
 
google
 
PeakSpeak
NICKNAME

Download TeamSpeak
What is PeakSpeak?
Peak Oil on IRC
 
Photo Album
Submit Photo
Peakoil.com is You!


member photos
 
Light Sweet Crude Oil
 
Member Quotes
I want my mommy!

Buggy

Suggest Quote

 
aspo08
 
ICM
Cisco & Net App Training
 
Asia going nuclear amid rising oil prices, concerns over global warming
Hydrocarbon Alternatives Led by fast-growing China and India, Asia is going nuclear in a big way to feed its ravenous appetite for energy.

The strains of economic growth are already showing. Energy shortages have forced Chinese factories to scale back production, and farmers in India often have power for only half the day. Both countries say their future growth is at risk unless they diversify their energy mix.

So does South Korea, where Yoon Ho-taek scans a construction site the size of 10 football fields in the southeastern city of Ulsan, points to what looks like a partly built amphitheater, and declares: ``The future of nuclear power is bright.''

Along with homemade reactors, Asia's plans hold out the promise of a bonanza for American companies such as Westinghouse Electric Co. and General Electric Co. which already have a strong presence in the region. Westinghouse has helped build 14 nuclear plants in South Korea and provided technology for almost half of Japan's 55 nuclear units. GE, meanwhile, has helped build 36 reactors in Japan, India and Taiwan.

``We expect Asia to become a leader in the use of commercial nuclear power,'' Timothy Collier, president of Westinghouse Korea, told The Associated Press. Asia needs a reliable electricity source, he says, and ``Nuclear offers the opportunity to do that free of the dependence on oil.''

Eighteen reactors _ about 70 percent of the world's total under construction _ are going up in Asia, and another 77 are planned or proposed, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.

Planet Save

Posted on Saturday, July 08 @ 04:32:48 PDT by waegari
 
Related Links
· More about Hydrocarbon Alternatives
· News by waegari


Most read story about Hydrocarbon Alternatives:
You can close the site now, energy problems are solved.

 
Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad

 
Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

 Send to a Friend Send to a Friend

 
Associated Topics

Consumption; Demand; PricesEnviromental Headlines; Climate ChangePublic Policy; Political and Legal News

"Login" | Login/Create an Account | 1 comment | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: Asia going nuclear amid rising oil prices, concerns over global warming (Score: 1)
by nethawk on Saturday, July 08 @ 14:42:20 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://cbll.net
The waste issue with nuclear energy can be essentially eliminated. Integral Fast Reactors combine a fast breeder reactor (to create fissile Pu-239 from non-fissile but abundant U-238) and a reprocessing system to INTERNALLY recycle the plutonium for energy use. On top of that, the reactors "fast" neutrons turn into energy what light-water reactors choke on. Americium, curium, etc. all leave the plant through the power lines and not in waste containers. No plutonium ever leaves the plant, other than via the power lines!

LWR: 1-2% of the fuel ever is turned into heat. The rest is waste.
IFR: 95%+ of the fuel is turned into heat.

All that is left over are small volumes of highly radioactive (meaning difficult to pilfer and fast-decaying) fission products. This waste decays to background levels in about 300 years.

IFRs have passive safety systems, they are safer than most nuclear plants currently in operation.

Trying finding any big disadvantages to these plants other than possibly up-front cost. I haven't had any luck! It doesn't make sense to build the "cheaper" light-water plants that waste uranium, then make a crapload of nuclear waste that has to be stored for 100,000+ years. Think of the amount of money that takes. IFR is the way to go.



Atom News FeedRSS 1.0 News FeedRSS 2.0 News FeedRSS Forums Feed