中国击败美国，开始启用世界上首座防堆芯熔毁的核电站 [美国媒体]

China beats US in starting world''s first meltdown-proof nuclear power plant

中国击败美国，开始启用世界上首座防堆芯熔毁的核电站



The fuel loading, which is the final step before the reactor starts operation, would place China as the first country in the world to begin running the most powerful plant.

该核电站正在装填燃料，这是反应堆开始运作之前的最后一步，这将令中国成为世界上首个开始运作这类最强大电站的国家。

China has taken a significant step towards changing the economics of renewable power in the world, and is ahead of the Unites States (US) in the race for cleaner energy: It has announced the launch of a nuclear power plant that is apparently immune to meltdown. This is the Sanmen Nuclear Power Station.

中国已经在改变世界可再生能源经济上迈出了重要的一步，并在清洁能源的竞赛中领先美国：它已宣布一座显然能够避免堆芯熔毁的核电站投入运行。这便是三门核电站。

The loss faced by South Carolina- based Santee Cooper and SCANA after abandoning the construction of two similar nuclear reactors in the US and the delay that followed turned out to be a gain for China.

由公司本部在森迪库珀公司和SCANA集团放弃在美国建造两座类似核反应堆的项目以及随之而来的延宕所导致的损失已经被证明为中国带来了利益。

Over the next two weeks, after the completion of fuel loading — the final step before the reactor starts operation, China will be the first country in the world to begin the operations of a unique power plant that sits facing the East China Sea, located in Sanmen county in Zhejiang province.

在接下来的两周时间里，在燃料装填工作——这是核反应堆开始运作之前的最后一步——完成之后，中国将成为世界上首个开始运作这种独一无二电站的国家——这座核电站坐落于中国东海之滨，位于浙江省三门县。

Sometime within the next couple of weeks, a pair of robotic arms will be installing the fuel into the core of the plant's reactor, heralding a new era in China's push for clean energy.

在之后两周内的某一时间，一对机械手臂将会把燃料装填入电站反应堆的核心之中，这标志着中国在寻求清洁能源上进入了一个全新的时代。

China needs nuclear energy to bring down its dependence on fossil fuels and meet its target on cutting down on pollution, George Borovas, a Tokyo-based partner and head of global nuclear group at Shearman & Sterling, told South China Morning Post.

谢尔曼与斯特林驻东京的合作伙伴与全球核能源团队主管George Borovas对《南华早报》说道：中国需要通过核能源来减少它对化石燃料的依赖，并实现其削减污染的目标。

How it all began

它是从何开始的？

The construction of the AP1000 reactor — which is being used in the Sanmen plant — began in 2009 with a joint investment by US and China of 40 billion yuan, with plans to begin the working of at least one of the two reactors in 2013.

AP1000核反应堆——该反应堆被用于三门核电站——的建设开始于2009年，由美国和中国共同投资400亿人民币，按照计划，该项目至少要在2013年开始两座核反应堆中的一座的建造工作。

The developments were delayed as the US supplier Westinghouse Electric Co redesigned the reactor's main pump, which reportedly uses the technology deployed in American nuclear submarines.

但是工程进度因为美国供应商西屋电气公司重新设计该反应堆的主泵而延误，据称该主泵使用了美国核潜艇上应用的技术。

After the meltdown of Japan's Fukushima nuclear reactor in 2011, Chinese safety inspectors wanted to incorporate the necessary changes in Sanmen's design to prevent it from meltdown. Thus Sanmen's launch date was postponed from June to end of this year.

在日本福岛核反应堆于2011年发生堆芯熔毁之后，中国的安全监管者们希望对三门核电站的设计作出必要更改，以防止其发生堆芯熔毁的事故。因此三门核电站的动工日期从该年6月推迟至年底。



How is it meltdown proof?

它是如何防止堆芯熔毁的？

The AP1000 reactor used in the power plant is designed in such a way that the overhead water tank will flush the reactor's core to keep it cool even if a water pump stops functioning in a situation of blackout.

该核电站所使用的AP1000核反应堆的设计思路确保了即便在该地发生停电状况导致水泵停止工作的情况下，悬空的水箱也能冲洗反应堆的核心部分，保持它的冷却状态。

The hot water would ascend as vapour, go into a heat exchanger into the atmosphere, condense and return to the tank. As long as gravity is in place, the cycle will continue without any human intervention.

热水将会变成蒸汽升腾，通过一个热交换机混入空气，然后压缩，再返回水箱之中。只要重力仍然存在，这一循环就能够在没有任何人类干预的情况下持续下去。

Hoping that there will be no more delays, a Westinghouse spokesperson in China was quoted as saying by SCMP: "The first AP1000 reactor is not only important to China, but the world."

《南华早报》引述西屋公司在中国的一名发言人的话说：“希望不会再出现任何延误，首座AP1000核反应堆不仅对中国至关重要，对于整个世界也是如此”。

America's loss was China's gain

美国之所失即中国之所得

The process of establishing an AP1000 reactor in the US had faced several roadblocks from the beginning. The US had not built any reactor since the Pennsylvania accident of 1979.

在美国建造一座AP1000核反应堆的进程从一开始就面对着若干障碍。自1979年的宾夕法尼亚事故以来，美国就再没有建造过任何核反应堆。

US President Donald Trump's Energy Independence Executive Order in March had punctured former President Obama's 2015 Clean Power Plan. It discouraged the intent to invest or develop clean energy including nuclear power.

美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在3月发布的能源独立行政命令已经削弱了前总统奥巴马在2015年推出的清洁能源计划。这一举措令投资或发展包括核能在内的清洁能源的企图受挫。

The cost overruns and the delays had driven the designer and the builder Westinghouse into bankruptcy in March.

3月，成本超支和延误已经令设计方和建造方西屋公司破产。



[–]firemylasers 16 points 1 day ago 
I wouldn't call the AP1000 meltdown-proof. It's passively safe for 3 days, which is quite excellent compared to currently-built designs (although it's not too unusual for a Gen III+ design), but still not at all the same as "meltdown-proof".

我不会把AP1000称为是防堆芯熔毁的反应堆。它只能被动地保证3天的安全，相比于现在正在建造的设计方案（虽然这在第三代设计中并不罕见）当然是非常出色的，但仍然不完全等于“防堆芯熔毁”。

The NuScale Power Module is the closest thing to a "meltdown-proof" design currently in existence, and I'm still not even sure that it'd be fair to call it a truly "meltdown-proof" design (although based on my interpretation of the NRC filings related to the NuScale design I would definitely still call it "extremely fucking meltdown-resistant").

NuScale Power模块才是现在所存在的最接近于“防堆芯熔毁”的设计，但我仍然不能确定能够把它称为真正的“防堆芯熔毁”涉及（虽然基于我对与NuScale设计相关的美国核管理委员会文件的理解，我的确可以称之为“极致的抗堆芯熔毁”设计）。

[–]Hiddencamper 3 points 1 day ago 
It becomes air coolable before it's water inventory is depleted.

在水冷物料耗尽之前，它会变成气冷模式。

[–]firemylasers 1 point 1 day ago 
Are you referring to the NuScale? Yes, it's supposed to do that, but I haven't yet been able to figure out from NRC filings alone what happens in certain edge failure cases (complete loss of battery power for example - it seems to require 24 hours of battery power before it's able to actually fully switch to passive cooling, it's unclear if effective passive cooling can be accomplished in the event that battery power is prematurely lost). I may be misremembering the way it worked, it could be that the 24 hours were purely a buffer to avoid prematurely switching into full passive cooling mode, and if I am please correct me. There are some other edge case incidents that are also concerning.

你说的是NuScale？是的，按照预想，它是这么运作的，但从美国核管理委员会的文件中，我还没能够看出在某种极端事故中将会发生什么（比如，完全失去电池能源——看起来它在完全转换成被动冷却之前，需要24小时的电池能源保障，不确定在电池能源过早丧失之前，它是否能够在事件中完成有效的被动冷却）。我可能记错了它的工作方式，可能24小时是完全的缓冲器，以避免过早地切换成完全的被动冷却模式，如果我错了，请予以指正。此外，还有一些与之相关的极端事故案例。

[–]Hiddencamper 3 points 1 day ago 
I need to check as well. I believe the initial stuff is all fail open/close air operated valves. The equalization and depressurization valves may not be (I thought they were too).

我需要好好查查。我相信最初的事件是空气开关操作阀门全部失灵。我认为整平和减压阀门可能没有失效（我曾经认为它们失效了）。

Regardless 24 hours is an eternity in nuclear operator time and if all I need to do is hook up a battery to one or two valves to stroke it and I now have indefinite cooling that's extremely safe. Additionally in a LOCA condition the core is never uncovered for a NuScale plant which as we are learning more in the last decade is a tremendous safety improvement (reflooding has to occur quickly and with high flow rates to prevent core damage).

尽管24小时是在核反应堆操作中是非常长的一段时间，而我所需要做的便是将电池装接至一两个阀门上，让它们打开，这样，我就能够通过冷却确保反应堆的安全了。此外，在冷却剂跑失事故中，NuScale核电站的核心永远都不会暴露出来，对此我们在过去十年中已经了解了更多，让核反应堆的安全性得到巨大的改善（再淹没必须以高流量尽快进行，以防止核心损毁）。

In general the advanced passive plants have weird safety criteria for what constitutes safe shutdown. In general you need to reach certain temperatures and pressures within the 72 hour cooling period and this requires commencing depressurization after the first 24 hours. The AP1000 is similar. It likely could stay in hot standby longer. But really if the issue is that complex that you can't get the unit back on auxiliary power in 24 hours you probably want to be depressurizing anyways.

总体而言，这种先进的被动模式核电站对于如何构成安全关闭有着异乎寻常的安全标准。总的来说，你需要在72小时的冷却周期内达到特定的温度和压力，这就要求在最初的24小时之后开始进行减压。AP1000的运作原理与之类似。它似乎能够在热备份状态维持更长时间。但如果问题太过于复杂，以至于你无法在24小时内让运作单元获得辅助能源，那么你可能就需要想尽一切办法减压了。

[–]CKtheFourth 7 points 1 day ago 
Meltdown-proof? Hmmm... Seems like a name like that is inviting a disaster.

防堆芯融化？嗯……看起来是一个招致灾难的名字

How's that unsinkable ship doing from the turn of the last century?

比如上个世纪初的永不沉没的船。

[–]DangermanAus 3 points 1 day ago 
The Americans did this first. Ran a loss of coolant accident style scenario for real on the EBR-II in Idaho. Demonstrated it was meltdown poof. There is a video of it.

美国人曾经是首个做到的。位于爱达荷的EBR-II曾经进行过冷却剂跑失事故真实场景的模拟。它被证明是可防止堆芯熔毁的。这里有一个视频。

[–]Sloth82 1 point 11 hours ago 
Very cool video, thanks.

很棒的视频，谢谢。

[–]uin7 -2 points 1 day ago* 
But still, not "crazed employee" meltdown proof, or "enemy agent" m-proof, or "future terrorist" m-proof. These are all valid risks and others which still have to be successfully warded against in every plant for every moment of their operation through every possible political scenario. Or it can meltdown and poison cities.

但仍然不存在能够防止“疯狂的员工”、“敌方间谍”和“未来的恐怖主义者”所导致的堆芯熔毁的方案。所有这些真实存在的风险已经在每一个核电站、在每一个操作时刻，在每一个可能的政治场景中被成功避免了。否则将会出现堆芯熔毁和一座座受毒害的城市。

[–]DangermanAus 2 points 1 day ago 
The video showed an employee shutting off all the safety and coolant systems for that type of reactor. Nuclear Plants are hardened structures that have skilled and competent security forces. The fact that no terrorist has been successful during the European troubles in the 70s and 80s, as well as the current era of fundamentalist terrorism is a testament to how hardened and protected these facilities are. You need to demonstrate the plausibility of your theses.

这个视频展示了一个雇员关闭了此类核反应堆的所有的安全措施和冷却系统。核电站是一种配备有能够胜任任务的职业安保力量的硬化结构建筑。事实上，在70年代和80年代的欧洲骚乱中，没有恐怖分子能够取得成功，而如今的基本教义派恐怖主义则是这些核电站有多坚固和受到何种保护的试金石。你需要证明你的观点的可行性。

[–]uin7 -1 points 1 day ago 
Saying a speeding car has not yet hit anyone is no indication that it is being driven well enough.

说一辆超速汽车还没有撞到任何人并不意味着它的操纵足够好。

The very existence of special security forces for nuclear power plants demonstrates the 'plausibility of the thesis"

每一个核电站都要配备特别安保力量正好证明了“这些观点的可行性”。

[–]JAFO_JAFO 7 points 1 day ago 
    |China has taken a significant step towards changing the economics of renewable power in the world, and is ahead of the Unites States (US) in the race for cleaner energy: It has announced the launch of a nuclear power plant

    |中国已经在改变世界可再生能源经济上迈出了重要的一步，并在清洁能源的竞赛中领先美国：它已宣布一座显然能够避免堆芯熔毁的核电站投入运行

The two are mutually exclusive. Nuclear isn't renewable energy. The fuel is mined, processed, extracted, undergoes nuclear reaction, and finally is processed into a waste to be managed and disposed of. There is talk that it's a cycle, and fuel can be re-used again, and we can go back and forth on that, but I would appreciate someone demonstrating how they can claim it's renewable.

两者是互不相干的。核能不是可再生能源。它的燃料是经过采矿、处理、提纯获得的，再经过核反应，最终成为一堆需要进行管理和处理的垃圾。而可再生能源则是一个循环，燃料能够被再次利用，我们能够反复利用它们，但我很欣赏有些人在宣称核能是可再生能源。

Google dictionary and wiki renewable and wiki Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy

谷歌词典和维基百科的“可再生”词条与“核能”词条都将它视为了可再生能源。

[–]Iamyourl3ader 12 points 1 day ago 
Nuclear power (uranium fission) is not renewable. It is nearly inexhaustible though, so what difference does it make?

核能（铀的核裂变）是不可再生的。但它近乎于无穷无尽，所以两者有何区别？

Nuclear fusion is not renewable either yet it is 100% inexhaustible.

核聚变是不可再生的，但它确实百分百不会枯竭的能源。

[–]greg_barton[S] 3 points 1 day ago 
It's as renewable as wind and solar. With seawater uranium extraction, replenished by the earth's crust, uranium supply will last until the sun expands enough to destroy all life on the planet. (i.e. as long as wind and solar will be useful.)

核能就像风能和太阳能一样是可再生的。通过从海水中提取铀和地壳的补充，铀的供应将会持续到太阳膨胀到足以摧毁地球上所有生命的时候（也就是说和风能与太阳能的使用时间是一样长的）。

[–]Iamyourl3ader 2 points 1 day ago 
That's still different from "renewable" though. Unless we can produce more uranium from fusion...

但这仍然不是“可再生”。除非我们能够通过核聚变生产更多的铀。

[–]greg_barton[S] 5 points 1 day ago 
No, actually it's not different from "renewable" at all. The uranium dissolved in seawater is literally renewed from the crust. It's as renewable as the energy provided by the sun, which is also finite.

不，事实上它和“可再生”根本没有什么不同。海水中所溶解的铀根本就是来自地壳中的。它就如同太阳所提供的能源一样是可再生的，因为后者也是有限的。

[–]uin7 5 points 1 day ago 
Besides the fuel aspect, Nuclear also produces the waste. The circumstances before and after we produce nuclear energy is not "renewed" then because of the accumulation of that waste.

除开燃料这方面，核能也会制造废料。因为废料的累积，我们生产核能前后的环境不是“可再生”的。

[–]greg_barton[S] 1 point 1 day ago 
Per unit of energy generated nuclear actually produces less waste than other sources except geothermal.

除开地热发电，核能每单位能量所产生的废料实际上要少于其他任何能源。

[–]uin7 5 points 1 day ago 
    |less waste

    |更少的废料

Renewables dont generate any waste that cant be recycled or at worst junked in a normal landfill

可再生能源不会产生任何废料，它们能够循环利用，在最坏的情况下，也能被扔入普通的垃圾处理场。

You have to be in love with nuclear to ignore the fact that it produces highly toxic radioactive waste that needs stored and some of it even kept under guard in perpetuity. Renewables do not generate any waste remotely like that.

你一定是非常支持核能，以至于忽略了这样一个事实，即它会产生剧毒的辐射废料，这些废料需要被存储起来，其中有些甚至是在配备永久守卫的情况下得以保存的。可再生能源不会产生任何废料，与此完全不同。

[–]boo_baup 2 points 10 hours ago 
Nothing is truly renewable.

没有什么是真正可再生的。

[–]greg_barton[S] 1 point 1 day ago* 
    |Renewables dont generate any waste that cant be recycled

    |可再生能源不会产生任何无法循环的废料

Spent fuel can be recycled as well.

核废料也能循环

    |You have to be in love with nuclear to ignore the fact that it produces highly toxic radioactive waste that needs stored

    |你一定是非常支持核能，以至于忽略了这样一个事实，即它会产生剧毒的辐射废料，这些废料需要被存储起来

You need to irrationally hate nuclear to ignore the fact that spent fuel is 95% useful fuel, can be recycled, and the remainder is only dangerous for 300 years. (And probably has uses we haven't figured out yet.)

你一定是不可理喻地反对核能，以至于忽略了这样一个事实，即核废料中含有95%的可使用燃料，能够被循环利用，而剩余部分的危险性也仅能维持300年。（而且可能有着我们还不知道的用途。）

|Renewables do not generate any waste remotely like that.

|可再生能源不会产生任何废料，与此完全不同。

Sure does.

当然会产生废料。

[–]000111011 2 points 1 day ago 
    |China has taken a significant step towards changing the economics of renewable power in the world, and is ahead of the Unites States (US) in the race for cleaner energy: It has announced the launch of a nuclear power plant

    |中国已经在改变世界可再生能源经济上迈出了重要的一步，并在清洁能源的竞赛中领先美国：它已宣布一座显然能够避免堆芯熔毁的核电站投入运行

I read that as a comparison of two low emissions sources, not two renewable ones.

在我看来，这是对两种低排放能源的比较，而不是两种可再生能源的比较。

[–]This_Is_The_End 0 points 1 day ago 
This is typical an American BS redefinition to make nuclear power more acceptable. By not doing such stupid narratives, American companies wouldn't have to fight conspiracy theories.

这是典型的美国式再定义，好让核能更加容易被人接受。但如果不这么做，美国的公司就不得不与阴谋论做抗争了。

[–]JAFO_JAFO 3 points 1 day ago 
It's also an interesting co-incidence that they provided a picture of the Fukushima reactor before meltdown, rather than an up to date picture. Frankly, I don't know why they included the picture at all - why not a picture of the new reactor in China??

还有一个有趣的巧合，他们发了一张福岛核反应堆堆芯熔毁之前的照片，而不是现在的照片。老实说，我完全不知道他们为何要放入这张照片——而不是那个位于中国的新核反应堆的照片？

[–]firemylasers 4 points 1 day ago* 
Actually, it looks like they mixed up Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini -- if you look at Google Earth, the photo in the article looks remarkably like what Daini looks like, and nothing like what Daiichi does or ever has looked like.

事实上，看起来他们弄混了福岛第一核电站和福岛第二核电站——如果你在谷歌地球上查看的话，这篇新闻中的照片看起来很像是福岛第二核电站的样子，福岛第一核电站现在和过去都不是这样的。

BTW the very first image in the article appears to be an image of Sanmen NPP.

另外，文章中的第一张照片看起来是三门核电站。