标题: 维基解密电报揭示对中国核安全的担忧ZT [打印本页] 作者: faye2500 时间: 2011-8-28 16:46 标题: 维基解密电报揭示对中国核安全的担忧ZT
The newly built Ling Ao secondary phase of the Daya Bay Nuclear Power station in China. Photograph: Adrian Bradshaw/EPA
China has "vastly increased" the risk of a nuclear accident by opting for cheap technology that will be 100 years old by the time dozens of its reactors reach the end of their lifespans, according to diplomatic cables from the US embassy in Beijing.
The warning comes weeks after the government in Beijing resumed its ambitious nuclear expansion programme, that was temporarily halted for safety inspections in the wake of the meltdown of three reactors in Fukushima, Japan.
Cables released this week by WikiLeaks highlight the secrecy of the bidding process for power plant contracts, the influence of government lobbying, and potential weaknesses in the management and regulatory oversight of China's fast-expanding nuclear sector.
In August, 2008, the embassy noted that China was in the process of building 50 to 60 new nuclear plants by 2020. This target – which has since increased – was a huge business opportunity. To keep up with the French and Russians, the cable urged continuous high-level advocacy on behalf of the US company Westinghouse to push its AP-1000 reactor.
This is crucial, according to the cable dated 29 August 2008 from the American Embassy in Beijing, because "all reactor purchases to date have been largely the result of internal high level political decisions absent any open process."
For the US embassy, a bigger concern was that China seemed more interested in building its own reactors – the CPR-1000 – based on old Westinghouse technology, at Daya Bay and Ling Ao.
"As the CPR-1000 increases market share, China is assuring that rather than building a fleet of state-of-the-art reactors, they will be burdened with technology that by the end of its lifetime will be 100 years old," reads another cable dated 7 August 2008.
For the past 10 years the CPR-1000 has been the most popular design in China. In 2009, the state news agency Xinhua reported that all but two of the 22 nuclear reactors under construction applied CPR-1000 technology.
The cable suggests this was a dangerous choice: "By bypassing the passive safety technology of the AP1000, which, according to Westinghouse, is 100 times safer than the CPR-1000, China is vastly increasing the aggregate risk of its nuclear power fleet. "
"Passive safety technology" ensures that a reactor will automatically shut down in the event of a disaster without human intervention. Plants without this feature are considered less safe as they rely on human intervention which can be difficult to provide in a crisis situation.
China says it has updated and improved the technology on which the CPR-1000 is based, but the government recognises that it is less safe than newer models. China's national nuclear safety administration and national energy administration are currently drafting new safety plans, which are thought likely to include a stipulation that all future plants have to meet the higher standards of third-generation reactors like the AP-1000 or thorium technology.
But it will still have to manage dozens of second-generation reactors for decades to come. Four CPR-1000s were approved by the state council just days before the Fukushima explosions. That accident – which was ranked on the same level as Chernobyl – has prompted a dramatic rethink of nuclear policy in Japan, Germany and Italy.
There is no sign of a change of heart in China, which plans to build more reactors than the rest of the world put together between now and 2020. The latest to be completed was the CPR-1000 at Ling Ao earlier this month.
The US embassy and Westinghouse may have wanted to play up the risks to improve the strength of their own bids, but safety concerns are also expressed within China. This year, Prof He Zuoxiu, who helped to develop China's first atomic bomb, claimed plans to ramp up production of nuclear energy twentyfold by 2030 could be as disastrous as the "Great Leap Forward" – Mao Zedong's disastrous attempt to jump-start industrial development in the late 1950s.
Writing in the Science Times, He asked: "Are we really ready for this kind of giddy speed [of nuclear power development]? I think not – we're seriously underprepared, especially on the safety front."
The rush to build new plants may also create problems for effective management, operation and regulatory oversight. Westinghouse representative Gavin Liu was quoted in a cable as saying: "The biggest potential bottleneck is human resources – coming up with enough trained personnel to build and operate all of these new plants, as well as regulate the industry."
Such worries increased in July when another of China's new industrial projects – a high-speed railway – led to a collision that killed 39 people. It too was built domestically, based on foreign designs and rolled out faster than its operators appear to have been capable of dealing with.
评论部分：
retrorik
25 August 2011 4:15PM
"Nuclear" and "Safety" ? I think not. "........it will be too cheap to meter....." yeah.
“核能”和“安全”？我认为不会。“........便宜没好货.....” 耶。
markulyseas
25 August 2011 4:17PM
Thank you wikileaks and in particular Julian Assange. Now will the US of A please leave him alone to carry on his good work.
alexcox
25 August 2011 4:29PM
"Passive safety technology" didn't prevent a meltdown at Fukushima, nor did it prevent the breaching of the cooling tanks (placed unbelievably on the now-inaccessible fourth floor of the reactor building).
Fukushima continues to release deadly radiation into the air and water table.
The only solution - a Chernobyl-style entombment in earth and concrete (which will at least reduce atmospheric contamination, if not water contamination) is being ignored.
There is no 'safe' nuclear technology. All of it - weapons or power - carries with it the potential for unlimited disaster. This is why no company - including Westinghouse - will embark upon any new-build nuclear plants without a guarantee that the taxpayer, in the event of such a disaster, will pay the bills.
Renewables, anyone?
whizgiggle
25 August 2011 4:35PM
Wikileaks really is the gift that keeps on giving
维基解密总是能不断地带给我惊喜。
6ihvkngb9
25 August 2011 4:52PM
cue the China-apologists!
提醒了中国的支持者！
ColinG
25 August 2011 4:59PM
"Passive safety technology" ensures that a reactor will automatically shut down in the event of a disaster.
The article is a bit confused here. The passive safety technology in question is the AP-1000's ability to passively cool the core after shutdown. This was lacking at Fukushima.
In the AP1000 the passive cooling works for 3 days with no operator intervention, no external power and no diesel generators. (After 3 days the water tank needs to be topped up.)
limu
25 August 2011 5:06PM
Having lived there for some time I'm not surprised by this.
Everything they have made has been a rushed botch job.
Buildings have an average life expectancy of 20-30 years; well under the Chinese advised level of 50 years.
They grew as big and as fast as possible.
Knowing someone who worked on the new high speed rail system I've been told that they used the cheapest concrete and steal and literally threw the whole thing together. Now we have train crashes, one of which killed over 100 people.
Give it another 30 years and we'll see the 3 Gorges Dam collapse and their reactors explode. It will be interesting to see how they try and cover those events up in the press.
oldbrew
25 August 2011 5:09PM
Whatever the local phrase for 'no publicity' is, the guy in the middle of the photo is thinking it.
当地所谓“不宣传”这个词的意思是照片中间的那个家伙正在考虑的事情。
RuthArcher
25 August 2011 5:10PM
it's a shame China doesn't invest in renewables (but not hydro- we have seen how destructive that is in that country) if they had the vision to do this while they were "rolling in money" they could lead the world for sustainable energy and as a result change the fate of the planet.
The amount of sulphur rich coal that is being burned in China to fuel their (and subsiquently our) manufacuring actuivty is a worry which leaves nuclear the most environmentaly sensible option!
mhenri
25 August 2011 5:12PM
Vital for us all - Chinese and non-Chinese alike - that WikiLeaks continues to be able to reveal what is going on behind that which appears to be going on. But it should always be remembered that the cables released show what US diplomats have chosen to tell their superiors - which is not necessarily synonymous with objective truth. Still, these analyses are likely far more accurate than Bowderlised versions reported to the public by official sources....
Henri
EmperorsAndPirates
25 August 2011 5:18PM
Wiki leaks sounds more and more like american propaganda every day
维基泄密听起来越来越像美国每天的宣传。
Realliberal
25 August 2011 5:27PM
China is a totalitarian state: nothing that the govermnent said can be tested for its truth. Perhaps some of those faux-liberals who write here occasionally might like to say what the opposition parties in China say or perhaps they might like to obtain information under the Chinese Freedom of Information Act, or from a free and uncontrolled newspaper or television channel.
piersplowman
25 August 2011 5:37PM
Just what was needed to show that WikiLeaks is not specifically aimed at the USA.
只需要表明的是，维基解密不是专门针对美国的。
afternoonguide
25 August 2011 5:44PM
China is still a developing country, you can't really expect that anything will be up to western standards.
I personally don't know what to think of this: on one hand, it's frightening that sub-standard reactors are being built; on the other hand, what's the alternative? Hydroelectric potential is limited, and requires extremely large and complicated construction projects that cause endless problems, like the Three Gorges Dam. No one who's visited Shaanxi Province would say that coal power is a feasible solution either.
Trying to curb electricity consumption would be political suicide for the Party.
Nuclear power is unfortunately the only realistic and 'safe' option for now.
TollyPointbee
25 August 2011 5:57PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
economicwar
25 August 2011 6:06PM
I'm willing to bet you a penny to a pound there will be a nuclear disaster in China within a decade
我愿意和你打赌一磅一便士，十年之内中国必发生核灾。
MooseFreedomFighter
25 August 2011 6:20PM
the Chinese Authorities are a disgrace in many many ways
this is just another example
Their Communism benefits a the very very few and all Democratic countries should refuse to trade or deal with them in any way - clearly this will never happen
ponder
25 August 2011 6:31PM
Even this old design will most likely cause less harm to the Chinese than the coal plants with no real pollution controls that they're throwing up at an impressive rate.
alexcox:
Passive safety technology" didn't prevent a meltdown at Fukushima,
Well, that's because the Fukushima design relied on active (powered) safety systems, which is why the loss of the diesel generators was a major problem.
hoppie00
25 August 2011 6:41PM
China have backed themselves into a corner, the appetite for energy consumption here is extraordinary, but they lack the means to deliver to their own people. I admire their vision though, they're doing everything and anything possible to achieve it.
But with desperation...
alexcox
25 August 2011 6:43PM
Ponder
So are you okay about what's going on at Fukushima? Is everything under control there?
Of course coal fired power plants are a massive problem. But they're a different sort of problem, and in the event of a serious fire or explosion the damage can be anticipated and mitigated.
There is no limit to the potential disaster a nuclear plant meltdown can unleash. And no limit to our liability, as taxpayers, to clean it up.
China has a huge land mass with plenty of wind and sunlight and an vast coast where tide power could be deployed.
It is also the world's largest producer of photovoltaics, most of which are exported to the west, leaving the toxic residue in China.
Renewables, anyone?
Ponder
fivemack
25 August 2011 6:59PM
Yes, I am OK about what's going on at Fukushima, and everything is as close to under control there as could reasonably be hoped for. It was a worst-case scenario and is going to result in the loss of economic usability of a thousand square kilometres of Japanese coastal farmland.
pietari
25 August 2011 7:03PM
Here's quite a bit of material on the Chinese nuclear developments.http://www.iaea.or.at/NuclearPow ... 000_CGNPC_S.Lau.pdf
onthefence
25 August 2011 7:05PM
alexcox: Of course coal fired power plants are a massive problem. But they're a different sort of problem, and in the event of a serious fire or explosion the damage can be anticipated and mitigated.
Coal certainly is a different sort of problem.
Coal-fired electricity causes 161 deaths per TWh of electricity generated, not as a result of accidents, but as a normal part of its operations.
You feel strongly enough to post often on this topic, yet you know less than nothing about it.
What motivates you?
roborbob
25 August 2011 8:41PM
This is what I say a more constructive news on criticism of China.
这就是我说的对中国的批评更有建设性的新闻。
BunnyFlumplekins
25 August 2011 9:11PM
@alexcox
Of course coal fired power plants are a massive problem. But they're a different sort of problem, and in the event of a serious fire or explosion the damage can be anticipated and mitigated.
So you prefer a power which is guaranteed to kill waaaaaay more people than the alternative source you criticize.
Mind you. That can be both anticipated and mitigated, as you say. You could ensure you have the numbers for various flower shops and send flowers to the relatives of the deceased, for instance.
ankh
25 August 2011 9:52PM
This is hardly a secret -- looks to me like the State Dep't cable is just quoting from published official Chinese sources there, which have been reported before.
China's officially on record on that possibility--they're worried about going too fast for their quality control: http://www.world-nuclear-news.or ... a_told_1101112.html
"11 January 2011
China should 'keep a clear head' on nuclear power, concentrate more on Generation-III reactors and keep its new build ambitions for 2020 to around 100 GWe, said a state body yesterday.
The advice came from the State Council Research Office (SCRO), which makes independent policy recommendations to the State Council on strategic matters. It appeared officially in Xinhua's weekly Outlook publication.
....
Going too far too fast 'could threaten the long-term healthy development ...
...
... ambitious targets to deploy AP1000s with reduced foreign input have proven difficult due to frequent quality control issues in the supply chain. As a result ... China is building Generation-II units in such large numbers, said the SCRO, counting 57 on the books."
----
Want scary? look up "quality control issues" for this or any other important equipment. Then look up "counterfeit bolt" and go on from there.
Sturgeon's Law applies. You know how to look it up.
VenusianVan
25 August 2011 10:26PM
How are those "cheap" and "quickly built" Chinese nukes looking now? Good luck to the Chinese people - you're going to need it in the coming years.
~~~
ColinG
> In the AP1000 the passive cooling works for 3 days...
Ah, yes. The fabled infallible nuke reactor that the nuke lobby has been promising for the past 60 years. Shame it has a tendency to leak like a sieve.
~~~
limu
> Having lived there for some time I'm not surprised by this.
This is not unique to China. Wherever the nuke industry has set up shop there have been catastrophes, near-misses, leaks, cover-ups and corruption... and still they try and spin their stories that the next generation of nukes are infallible.
~~~
RuthArcher
> it's a shame China doesn't invest in renewables
They are investing more in renewables than any other country on the planet. They are deploying far more renewable energy than nuclear.
* China has raised its target for renewable energy to 500 GW by 2020 - compared to 70GW for nuclear. http://www.renewableenergyworld. ... cy-update-for-china + http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBJI00247420101124
Those are pre-Fukushima plans. I believe they have given further priority to renewables over nukes as a result - but it's obviously difficult to confirm exactly what is happening with any reliability.
~~~
ponder
> ...coal plants with no real pollution controls that they're throwing up at an impressive rate.
Your anti-China talking point is out of date.
* China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants. "China has begun requiring power companies to retire an older, more polluting power plant for each new one they build."
~~~
onthefence
> Coal certainly is a different sort of problem.
Good that you admit both coal and nukes are a problem. And it's lucky that we can get rid of both of these death-spewing industries.
* "...cancer ... risks are increased even with the smallest dose of radiation. The so-called permissible dose of radiation, for nuclear workers or for the public at large, represents only a legalized permit for the nuclear industry to commit random, premeditated murders upon the ... population."
ChinaBounder
25 August 2011 11:07PM
afternoonguide:
I personally don't know what to think of this: on one hand, it's frightening that sub-standard reactors are being built; on the other hand, what's the alternative?
Surely the alternative is to build more advanced reactors? The central government is hardly short of money - look at the billions they spunked on the Olympics and the Expo.
I'd assume that US 'worries' about Chinese nuclear tech are in part simply motivated by business considerations - i.e., they want China to buy their stuff.
But at the same time, the inherent secrecy of the CCP (and its scant regard for public opinion in such matters) combined with the endemic and rampant corruption in the nation gives rise to wholly legitimate concerns about nuclear safety in China.
ponder
25 August 2011 11:43PM
ChinaBounder:
Surely the alternative is to build more advanced reactors? The central government is hardly short of money - look at the billions they spunked on the Olympics and the Expo.
They are, in fairness, trying to do this. Part of their deal with Westinghouse was technology transfer for the AP1000, so they could start building their own such reactors. But it can't be done quickly enough to meet their energy needs.
velocet
26 August 2011 3:35AM
Am I the only one who still believes nuclear power is a relatively safe option? It was revealed that Tepco cut corners in safety checks with the Fukushima plant, also bear in mind that was the strongest earthquake in the region since around 1200-1400 (don't remember exactly, sorry). Every nuclear power plant is not on a major fault line.
I also believe that story got sensationalised a lot in the media. How many people actually died/fell fatally ill due to it? The media using attention-grabbing phrases like, "radiation 1000 times the standard level is now being recorded around the power plant". But lets be honest, that's still not fatal without an extremely prolonged period of exposure right?
Only two major nuclear power plant accidents have happened, the other one being Chernobyl which was a Soviet era facility which I wouldn't be surprised facilitated gross mismanagement, not to mention it being a relatively new technology at that stage.
Of course I don't address the matter of used uranium and their affects on the environment, that's a much more controversial/debatable matter which more dedicated environmentalists/physicists/biologists/chemists would be better at answering.
Don't get me wrong, I am strongly in favour of wind, solar and possibly hydro electric power but I don't imagine 100% of our energy sources coming from those forms of generation. To clarify, I prefer nuclear power to oil, coal and natural gas power stations.
twopennorth
26 August 2011 4:30AM
fivemack
Yes, I am OK about what's going on at Fukushima, and everything is as close to under control there as could reasonably be hoped for.
Three reactor cores melted though their containment vessels. Building 4 at risk of collapse, spilling its overloaded spent-fuel pool. Reactors unapproachable. Pipes leaking. Foundations cracked. Locations at the plant where radiation levels exceed 10 sieverts per hour. Tea crops irradiated over 300 km away. Beef, rice, milk, mushrooms, fruit crops, seafood and even wild boar meat irradiated. Schoolyards irradiated. City parks irradiated. Radioactive sludge building up at sewage treatment plants in Tokyo...
Sounds largely out of control to me.
pietari
26 August 2011 8:21AM
Three reactor cores melted though their containment vessels. Building 4 at risk of collapse, spilling its overloaded spent-fuel pool. Reactors unapproachable. Pipes leaking. Foundations cracked.
twopennorth, the molten cores have not breached their containment vessels. No "China syndrome" here, we may safely send it back to the drama literature. #4's foundations have been strengthened in July, and no spill is taking place. Pipes may still be leaking somewhere (but they need not be carrying radioactive material), and I'm positive there's a crack somewhere in the foundations after the tsunami.
Beef, rice, milk, mushrooms, fruit crops, seafood and even wild boar meat irradiated
twopennorth, everything here is irradiated. Occationally foodstuff (mostly fish) that is over the legal limit to sell still pops up here in my country due to Chernobyl. Are the Finnish kids therefore dead or dying, or even ever so slightly sick?
Sounds largely out of control to me.
I'n sure the accident will still be furiously raging on in some circles well into the 2020s. Having an opinion is one thing, messing with facts another.
QueenElizabeth
26 August 2011 8:46AM
@afternoonguide
I personally don't know what to think of this: on one hand, it's frightening that sub-standard reactors are being built; on the other hand, what's the alternative?
As Chinabounder also notes, the alternative is to build high-standard, safe reactors. Or is that somehow not an alternative in China?
twopennorth
26 August 2011 9:29AM
pietari
All of the instances of contamination that I've cited involve levels that exceed the 'safe' limits set by the Japanese government. Finnish kids may have got off lightly but it is a different story for the children of Ukraine and Belarus, as NGOs such as Chernobyl Children's Life Line will inform you.
I stand corrected regarding the molten cores, but TEPCO itself has acknowledged that the containment chambers of the damaged reactors have likely been damaged. It is thanks to this damage that thousands of tonnes of highly contaminated cooling water have accumulated in the building's basements and are at risk of leaking into the groundwater and ocean.
pietari
ChinaBounder
26 August 2011 9:30AM
Ponder:
Part of their deal with Westinghouse was technology transfer for the AP1000, so they could start building their own such reactors. But it can't be done quickly enough to meet their energy needs.
Fair enough.
In many ways China is handling its energy needs with a lot more responsibility than many Western nations, it seems to me. But (as you point out) the sheer scale of its energy needs causes problems on a different scope to pretty much any other nation.
printerink
26 August 2011 10:36AM
The only really serious nuclear disaster took place in the Soviet Union, which like China is today was a backward, totalitarian regime where life is cheap and dissent often fatal.
We can't stop such vile governments jerry-building dangerous nuclear power stations but that doesn't mean advanced nations need stop building safe ones.
quokkaZ
26 August 2011 11:15AM
I must say it's a bit rich for the Americans to be criticizing China for building reactors that are probably as safe as the safest reactors in the current 100 strong US fleet.
