中国将建设各种类型的能源，包括开始建造8个新核反应堆

原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：梦魔 转载请注明出处
论坛地址：http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-472335-1-1.html

1楼 Mark Stewart
5 or 8 reactors might sound like a lot but itis a drop in the bucket. The Chinese actually need to ramp up renewable andnukes higher. And they need to make sure the coal power plants have theirpollution control equipment on. As for natural gas they should look intobuilding pipelines from the Middle East, the 'Stan' states and SouthEast Asia.

5个或8个反应堆听起来很多，但不过是桶里的1滴水。实际上中国需要加强可再生能源和核能。而且他们还得确保燃煤电站污染控制设备开着。至于天然气，他们应该研究从中东那些“斯坦”国和东南亚建造天然气输送管道。

madsam 回复Mark Stewart
The trouble of faster build is the pace ofnuclear developments and costs of decommissioning. Nuclear power plants arealmost out of date on completion and the number of plants at the end of theirlife should be manageable.

加快建造核电站的麻烦就是核电发展速度和退役费用。核电站完工的时候就几乎已经过时了，而且在这么多的核电站退役的时候，应当易于处理才是。

scaryjello 回复madsam
Out of date? So, 1GW+ of electrical generationcan go out of fashion or something? The second statement makes no sense either.You're worrying about making up for lost capacity in 60-years when a fleet thathasn't been built yet starts to retire? Or are you saying that decommissioninga dozen plants in the same year (2080 for argument's sake) is going to be achallenge? You're imagining that they can't just sit there and wait their turn?A backlog would be a problem how? You better hope the UK sticks to their plansto build more LWR in the coming decade. It is one UK policy that actually makessense; it shows that the UK hasn't become feminized like most other states inthe first world.

过时了？那么说来，1GW+的电站居然还会过时或是啥的？第二种说法也毫无道理。一堆核电站还没开始建造呢你就开始担心退役的事了，你还是担心下要是没有这些电站，该怎么弥补60年里缺少的装机容量吧？又或者，你意思是说，就算2080年一年里退役一打核电站算是个挑战？你在想象他们啥都不干，坐等到点吗？这么多核电站怎么就是个问题了？你最好希望英国在未来十年里继续建造更多的轻水堆。对英国来说，这还真是个很有实际意义的政策，表明英国没有像第一世界的其他国家那样变得娘娘腔那样犹豫不决。

2楼 godfree
In 2014, Chinese engineers began constructingthermal plants twenty percent more efficient and thirty percent less pollutingthan conventional units (and which display real-time emissions on largebillboards). Since their fuel savings recoup their investment in fifteen years,they’re rapidly replacing older units. By 2020, all power plants will beequally clean and cut lifetime emissions of NOx, sulfur dioxide, particulatesand CO2 by billions of tons. 

2014年，中国工程师开始建造新型火电站，比传统发电厂效率提高了20%，污染降低了30%（而且还在大屏幕上实时展示排放值）。由于这种燃料上的节省，15年里就能收回投资，他们正在迅速取代旧电厂。到2020年，所有的电厂都会同样清洁，并且在服役期间减排氮氧化物、二氧化硫、颗粒物以及二氧化碳达到数十亿吨。

But replacing dirty, coal-fired plants with cleaner, coal-fired plants isa stopgap because the world’s 1,500 biggest coal-fired plants will stillgenerate thirty percent of the planet’s carbon dioxide emissions. So thegovernment plans to reduce their emissions to zero by replacing their coalfurnaces with Pebble Bed Reactors using stacked, uranium-cored graphite spheres,‘pebbles,’ and circulating helium to conduct their heat to boilers. Passivelysafe–overheated stacks melt a plug and the pebbles roll into a cooling area–thefirst plant will come online in 2019, to be followed by a factory that willmass-produce reactors designed to be shipped, in modules, to the sites ofexisting coal-fired mega-plants, where they will replace coal furnaces withpebble bed furnaces. The mega-plants will continue operating with existingstaffs, electricity grids, transmission lines, cooling water, roads andrailroad tracks–but zero pollution. 

但用清洁的燃煤发电厂取代肮脏的燃煤发电厂只是临时措施，因为世界上1500个最大的燃煤发电厂仍将产生所有电厂二氧化碳总排放量的30%。因此政府计划通过用高温气冷球床反应堆代替燃煤锅炉将排放减少至零，这种反应堆采用层层堆叠的铀核心石墨球，并利用氦气循环导热来加热锅炉。这种反应堆具有非能动安全措施——过热的热量会融化安全塞，石墨球就会落入冷却池中——该电站将在2019年并网发电，随后工厂将会大批量生产反应堆，并以模块化运输到现有的燃煤发电厂，用高温气冷球床反应堆取代燃煤锅炉。大型发电厂将会继续利用现有的员工、电网、输电线路、冷却水、道路和铁路运行，但却毫无污染。

China has forty nuclear power reactors in operation, twenty underconstruction and, by constructing seven each year, it reaps the rewards of massproduction: six Chinese-designed 1000 MW reactors under construction atYangjiang, for example, will cost $11.5 billion, one-third the historicalprice. 

中国目前有40个核反应堆在运行，还有20个在建，而且，通过每年建造7个核反应堆，中国会得到大批量生产的效益：比如说，在阳江建造的6座中国设计的1000MW反应堆，仅耗资115亿美元，相当于历史价格的三分之一。

The Chinese Academy of Sciences is also collaborating with America’s OakRidge National Laboratory on a molten salt reactor using thorium, a fuel thatcreates no radioactive waste and a pilot plant will be operational by 2025.Safe, simple fuel handling, a small footprint, cheap, abundant fuel and highenergy efficiency should make it an attractive alternative to uranium-basedplants. Nuclear scientist Kirk Sorensen says, “Thorium is so energy-dense that6,600 tonnes of it could replace the combined 5.3 billion tonnes of coal, 31.1billion barrels of oil, 2.92 trillion cubic meters of natural gas and 65,000tonnes of uranium that the world consumes annually”. 

中国科学院还与美国橡树岭国家实验室合作，研究采用钍的熔盐反应堆，这种燃料不会产生放射性废物，将于2025年建成一座中试发电厂。这种发电厂的优点包括安全简便的燃料处理，占地面积小、且拥有廉价丰富的燃料，发电效率高，成为了铀反应堆发电厂之外的另一个具有吸引力的选项。核科学家Kirk Sorensen说：“钍的能量密度很高，6600吨钍就能替代世界每年消耗的53亿吨煤、311亿桶石油、2.92万亿立方米天然气和65000吨铀。”

Chinese engineers are also busy with nuclear fusion. The HefeiSuperconducting tokamak can maintain a stable burn rate for fifteen minutes–tentimes the the previous record–paving the way for the commercially viable markof one hour.

中国工程师还在忙于核聚变研究。合肥超导托卡马克装置能够维持燃烧达到15分钟——是此前记录的十倍——为一小时的商业运行可行性标志铺平了道路。

scaryjello 回复godfree
Good for China, but the following statement isignorant/incorrect: '... using thorium, a fuel that creates noradioactive waste...' That isactually disinformation; splitting atoms is splitting atoms and you make thesame products when you split atoms, so the statement is incorrect. Also, whyare you quoting some US Flibe guy with a Scandinavian surname? Don't you haveyour own experts? The only path forward for that guy's career is if China giveshim a job; I suggest you don't; simply build the talent in-house as you aredoing. As far as spilling out fuel pebbles when there is a reactor isolation(station blackout), those pebbles are going to jam together at the outlet atthe bottom and stay in the reactor. Many of us here are aware that gas-cooledpebble bed reactors are high quality heat sources, but also aware that the fuelis expensive simply by virtue that there isn't a lot of fuel mass in thepellets; most of the volume/mass is bulk carbon. An industrial process forgraphite physical vapor deposition or compaction with subsequent machining isnot ever going to be cheaper than sealing 10.5g/cc uranium-oxide in tubes andwelding them shut. Following the US/RF/EU lead, as China is in this case, takenote that 'if we didn't build it already, there was a reason.' 在阳光下没有什么新东西

确实对中国是个好消息，但你下面那段话是不准确的（即‘采用钍的熔盐反应堆，这种燃料不会产生放射性废物’）。这实际上是假象：裂变就是裂变，只要是裂变，就会产生同样的产物，所以那段话并不准确。还有，为啥你要引用那个有斯堪的纳维亚姓的美国家伙Flibe的话呢？你自个儿不够专业吗？对那家伙的职业来说，唯一的一条路就是中国会不会给他工作；我建议你不要这么做。至于石墨球在从反应堆阻塞孔流出时，很有可能石墨球会挤成一团，塞住通道，于是会继续呆在反应堆里（从而引发事故）。我们大多数人都知道高温气冷堆是高质量的人员，但燃料昂贵，仅仅是因为石墨球中大部分不是燃料，而是碳（事实上是碳化硅。译者注）。石墨的物理气相沉积或用机器压实的工业生产，绝不会比将10.5g/cc的铀氧化物装入管材并焊接来的便宜。中国紧跟美国/俄罗斯/欧盟，请注意“如果我们早先没有建造，那就肯定有原因” 。在阳光下没有什么新东西（原文为中文）。

godfree回复scaryjello
You've described the status quo well. Let's seehow China changes it after 5-10 years of work.

你对现状描述得相当准确。让我们看看中国怎么用5-10年的功夫来改变它吧。

3楼scaryjello
Wow. By 2020 they will have a little bit morethan half of our currently operating nuclear capacity. Shout out to wind powerwith 25GW nameplate capacity; they should put giant electric fans in front ofthose windmills to increase the capacity factor above 17% because it's actuallyless than 4 gigawatts installed when time averaged.

哇哦，到2020年，他们就会超过我们现在核电装机容量的一半多一点儿。他们喊出25GW的名义装机容量，就得将风扇扇叶的容量因子提高17%以上，因为按照时间平均来说，是小于4GW的。

4楼Combinatorics
The comparison to France is interesting. WhenFrance went nuclear they standardized their design and just started makingreactors. China seems to be interested in making as many different reactors aspossible.

与法国对比起来很有趣。法国建造核电站时，它们将核电站设计标准化，然后才开始建造反应堆。中国则似乎乐于尽可能建造很多种不同的反应堆。

Again it strikes me as wasteful.

再次声明，我觉得这完全是浪费。

John ONeill回复Combinatorics
When the US wanted to win WWII they worked onweapons using uranium, plutonium and thorium ( U233 ) - plus building moreships and planes than anyone in history. If you have a big economy it's notwasteful to try out a lot of things, it's good management.

美国想要赢得二战的时候，它们用铀、钚和钍造武器——还建造了很多舰船飞机，比历史上任何一个国家都多。如果你拥有一个庞大的经济体系，尝试多种事物并不是浪费，反而是很好的。

Asteroza回复Combinatorics
It's not a bad plan all things considered,since they want to generate knowledge on current gen PWR's using variousderivatives of the AP1000 design, and spread some dev risk by trying all sortsof gen4 reactors. France essentially did the same, with a standardized basicdesign, but a number of interesting experimental reactors (though most of thatended up not helping commercial tech). Testing alternative power cycles is inbest interests of the chinese as they have the chance to leapfrog thestate-of-the-art elsewhere. At the least, they'd be fools to not test asupercritical CO2 power cycle due to balance of plant savings.

考虑到所有的事情，这并不是个糟糕的计划，因为它们想通过现有的AP1000衍生的各种压水反应堆设计来充分了解知识，并通过尝试各种第四代反应堆来分散风险。法国干的其实差不多，有个标准的基本设计，但有一堆有趣的实验反应堆（尽管大多数此类反应堆最终对商业技术毫无用处）。尝试替代能源是符合中国的利益的，因为这样就有机会超越世界先进水平。至少，它们不会愚蠢地尝试二氧化碳超临界循环，仅仅为了节省发电厂开支。

Mindbreaker回复Combinatorics
I suspect it is an investment to familiarizethemselves with all the nuclear technology out there and get real worldcomparisons of strengths and weaknesses. Then they will probably improve theirdesigns using the best of the best and make a bunch of those. Maybe even justcopy the best design, I doubt that will be the case, but it is possible.

我认为这是一种投资，让中国能够熟悉所有的核电技术，并且切切实实地比较各种技术的优缺点。然后它们就会用好中之好的法子来改进设计，并且造上一大堆。当然也可能只是复制最好的设计，我怀疑这是有可能的。

WdoubleUweb回复Mindbreaker
It would be foolish for China to commit to astandardized design now when there are so many new technologies underdevelopment and testing. They are playing the long game to see which design isthe safest, cheapest, efficient, and sustainable, such as the traveling wavenuclear reactor that uses depleted uranium and eliminates the need to get ridof nuclear waste. It would be wasteful it they spend billions, on one designnow. Once they settle on the best design they will spend billions, or eventrillions, for rapid build out such as they did for high-speed rail, solar andwind power.

对中国来说，在有如此之多的新技术的情况下开始标准化设计可是够蠢的。它们在玩一个长期游戏，看看哪种设计最安全、最便宜、最有效、最具可持续性，比如说行波堆采用了贫铀并且无需处理核废料。如果现在它们花几十亿美元设计一个堆型，那就太浪费了。一旦它们确定了最佳设计，就会用几十亿甚至几万亿美元来快速建造核电厂，就像高铁、太阳能和风能那样。

5楼Combinatorics
Because all forms of energy are equal? Allforms of nuclear power are equal? Equally easy to produce? Equally economical?Equally safe?

因为所有类型的能源都是同样的吗？所有的核能都是同样的吗？同样好生产？？同样经济？同样安全？

It is nice to see but it strikes me as wasteful. A cost/benefit analysiswould be useful. Why make EPR's, VVER's, and AP1000s? Maybe just make one?

中国干的看起来很漂亮，但对我来说就是浪费。做个成本/效益分析很有用的。为什么要建造EPR、VVER和AP1000呢？为什么不只用一种呢？

At least the AP1000 leads them to the CAP1400.

至少AP1000还让他们发展出了CAP1400。

O but whatever. Economics doesn't matter when you are discussing billions.

无论如何，在讨论数十亿美元的时候，经济并不重要。