Construction’s started on a nuclear plant in Shandong province, south of Beijing. China now has the most plants under construction, which has critics in and out of the country concerned about safety. This is undoubtedly fueled by the recent Fukushima disaster, which did temporarily slow construction. However, the sector is making a comeback, and power output may rise 20x by 2030. China is putting more money into regulatory institutions and making sure plants use internationally proven designs. Personally, I believe that this growth is good for China, since it provides an alternative to coal and ultimately will help with air pollution. Currently less than 2% of China’s energy is from nuclear and I feel they could also benefit from diversification.
http://www.economist.com/news/china/21569774-china-wants-more-nuclear-plants-anyone-else-will-it-build-them-safely-back-front
We need to approach this issue with two questions: is nuclear power cost effective? is it less safe than alternatives? The answer is clear if we compare it to coal and to hydroelectric: nuclear is safer. Of course there are other options. As to cost, once in operation nuclear is cheaper than fossil fuels. Capital costs depend on the ability to manage projects well and to stability in the regulatory framework. In the US they are [were?!] very high, in part because each plant was unique and faced regulatory hurdles and (Long Island Power Lighting) and management incompetence that meant construction took a decade or more. That rendered nuclear power on average cost ineffective, though New Hampshire power showed it could be done sensibly.
As to safety, coal plants spew out acids (esp sulfur), mercury, radiation, and fine particulate matter. All are demonstrable public health risks — and that’s not simply from extrapolating high level-exposure to low levels, and is true for a modern plant using high-quality [low sulfur] coal. China’s plants are old, inefficient (so generate more particulate matter) and often use very low quality coal. That leads to thousands of deaths a year, mining to thousands more, just in China. Even if we add together Fukushima and Chernobyl, the health cost of nuclear across its history on a global basis is less than that of coal on in China on an annual basis. Dam disasters also abound, and a burst dam can (in China, has) kill 10,000+ in minutes.
So should China build more nuclear plants? That depends on capital costs and the ability to maintain high capacity utilization (unlike Tokyo Electric Power). Empirically, safety is not the issue when coal is the alternative.
Avoid the passive voice!! check for duplication!! — I edited it, compare to your original below:
Very interesting stuff – I am extremely interested to see how countries like China distribute resources to fulfill their energy needs, and what industries will be thriving 10, 20, and 30 years down the road. Certainly the potential for nuclear plant prominence in China depends on the capital costs, and I agree that coal has had a far more adverse impact on Chinese health, but the fact remains that many people in China are very much opposed to going through with development of nuclear plants, for instance near the Yangtze River. I am interested to see how, in the future, Chinese lawmakers, regulators, and businesses handle relationships with the public, and what role that plays in future endeavors.
It’s not all nuclear: outside Urumqi in western china (Xinjiang):
The ramafactions of a lack of dilligence in the safty regulations for these new plants are much higher than the ramafactions of lackadaisical enforcement of the rules of the road, that we have been discussing in class recently. The country could be rocked to the core if these plants suffer melt downs. Certainly something to look going forward.