What's new

Pakistan Breaks Ground on a 2,200-megawatt Nuclear Plant Project With China.

Kompromat

ADMINISTRATOR
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
40,366
Reaction score
416
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Pakistan Breaks Ground on Nuclear Plant Project With China

By SALMAN MASOOD and CHRIS BUCKLEY
Published: November 26, 2013



ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Tuesday ceremonially broke ground on a $9.59 billion nuclear power complex to be built in Karachi with China’s help, seeking to ease Pakistan’s long-running energy crisis and signaling a new step by China in becoming a top nuclear supplier.


The deal, which officials said was still being finalized, is a major new advance in energy cooperation between the two countries, dwarfing previous reactor projects built along with China at Chashma, in Pakistan’s interior. And it establishes a growing counterpoint to a nuclear axis between the United States and India in recent years that Pakistani officials have seen as an irritant and Chinese officials have seen as a geopolitical challenge.

“The beginning of the 2,200-megawatt power project is indeed a proud moment in the energy history of Pakistan,” Mr. Sharif said at the ceremony, adding that the construction was to be completed in six years. The Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, and officials from the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission attended.

Energy supply remains one of the most pressing concerns in Pakistan, and it was a major issue in the general elections last May, when Mr. Sharif promised in his campaign speeches to end crippling shortages that have hobbled the economy. After taking office, his first visit was to China, where he discussed the nuclear power plant project.

Officials said the new project is to be built around two new-model Chinese ACP-1000 nuclear reactors, with China also providing enriched uranium for fuel.

However, Pakistani officials have provided few details of how they plan to finance it. In September, the International Monetary Fund approved a $6.6 billion loan to help stabilize Pakistan’s struggling economy and tackle the energy crisis.

Mr. Sharif did not mention financing in his speech, but he said that he has assured the Chinese investors that his government “will support them in every way.”

China has signaled its intent to expand nuclear energy cooperation with Pakistan in joint statements from their leaders, said Zhang Li, an expert on Pakistan at the Institute of South Asian Studies at Sichuan University in southwest China.

“Both countries have expressed their willingness to expand cooperation in civilian nuclear energy,” Mr. Zhang said in a telephone interview. “In that sense, you didn’t need a crystal ball to see this project coming.”

The new project is not without potential controversy. In the years since China and Pakistan agreed to build the first reactor at Chashma, China has joined both the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an agreement by 47 countries to limit exports of nuclear technology and materials.

Mr. Zhang said that China is almost certain to deem the new projects as a “grandfathered” extension of the countries’ earlier nuclear deals signed before China joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group. That means China would not consider seeking approval for the reactors from the group, which has few teeth to deal with members who ignore its rules, according to nuclear analysts.

“My analysis is that this issue won’t trigger too much controversy,” Mr. Zhang said. “The Indian government will certainly respond, but I don’t think that this will fundamentally harm Sino-Indian relations, because it’s not something that has come out of the blue. China and India have exchanged views on this many times.”

On the supplier group’s likely response, Mr. Zhang said: “I don’t think the N.S.G. will formally raise this issue, because the experience in the past was that the members would reach an implicit understanding, and so this issue never caused a big fuss in previous N.S.G. meetings.”

One of the main events considered to have weakened the Nuclear Suppliers Group, in fact, was the 2005 commercial nuclear deal between the United States and India, which like Pakistan developed nuclear weapons in the face of global pressure. The deal has been a lasting source of outrage for Pakistani officials.

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not commented on the project with Pakistan. But in the past, it has said that China’s nuclear cooperation with Pakistan is entirely peaceful and comes under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

Pakistan has also sought to bridge its energy shortfall through a gas pipeline deal with Iran. That has been hung up by international sanctions against Iran, but Pakistani officials have continued to push for it. On Tuesday, Mr. Sharif’s chief foreign policy adviser, Sartaj Aziz, was in Iran to discuss the project.

Mr. Sharif on Tuesday also announced plans to build six more nuclear plants in other parts of the country. But Mr. Zhang said that China was unlikely to build any more nuclear reactors in Pakistan beyond the two units in Karachi. The choice of Karachi is significant because it is considered Pakistan’s economic and trade center, and its coastal location also provides ample water for use in reactor cooling.

“Today people look with envy toward cities like Dubai, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore,” Mr. Sharif said in his speech, which was broadcast live. “I wish to see Karachi in this list of harbors and industrial hubs.”

Salman Masood reported from Islamabad, and Chris Buckley from Hong Kong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/w...lant-project-with-china.html?hpw&rref=science
 
.
Officials said the new project is to be built around two new-model Chinese ACP-1000 nuclear reactors, with China also providing enriched uranium for fuel.

Great news. :cheers:

I don't know why any countries would oppose this.

Developing countries need energy, and Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, so what is the harm in acquiring more nuclear power plants?
 
.
ThirdGen.jpg


Great news. :cheers:

I don't know why any countries would oppose this.

Developing countries need energy, and Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, so what is the harm in acquiring more nuclear power plants?


We'll just play nice, it makes no difference now.

Thanks to you clowns any way, for third gen reactors- now we don't have to smuggle depleted uranium into India for dumping. ;)
 
.
Many "feel good" platitudes, but not much substance, as usual. In short, nothing much has changed.
 
.
View attachment 10934




We'll just play nice, it makes no difference now.

Thanks to you clowns any way, for third gen reactors- now we don't have to smuggle depleted uranium into India for dumping. ;)
Dude are you sure that chinese Gen lll reactors = western Gen lll reactors ?????
 
.
$10 billion for two ACP-1000s. That;s steep.

There is at least $4 billion overpricing if not more.

My comparison is based on how much Chinese paid to USA when buying the design and material.
 
.
$10 billion for two ACP-1000s. That;s steep.

There is at least $4 billion overpricing if not more.

My comparison is based on how much Chinese paid to USA when buying the design and material.

It is around a billion dollars per 1,000MW generating capacity, so something is far more wrong with this pricing than what you say.
 
.
It is around a billion dollars per 1,000MW generating capacity, so something is far more wrong with this pricing than what you say.

What? Since when?

The UK Government is currently paying £16 billion ($25 billion in USD) for their new Nuclear power plant:

BBC News - UK nuclear power plant gets go-ahead

The government has given the go-ahead for the UK's first new nuclear station in a generation.


France's EDF Energy will lead a consortium, which includes Chinese investors, to build the Hinkley Point C plant in Somerset.

Ministers and EDF have been in talks for more than a year about the minimum price the company will be paid for electricity produced at the site, which the government estimates will cost £16bn to build.
 
. . .
NSG cannot do much in this regard. When US made a Nuclear Deal with India, It went to NSG for the waiver of rules for US-Indian Deal and China objected. US convinced China that it will not oppose China if China sought such a waiver for Pakistan. So the US and China already have an Understanding on this issue. The Reactors will be built in Karachi and it will really help to have surplus electricity in Karachi because it is the Financial Hub of Pakistan.
 
.
This is the power plant I'm talking about:

Hinkley Point C nuclear power station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There will be two reactors, which will provide a total of 3,200 MW.

It will cost $25 billion USD.

Now compare this with the absolutely ridiculous claim below:

It is around a billion dollars per 1,000MW generating capacity, so something is far more wrong with this pricing than what you say.

According to VCheng, the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station should cost $3 billion. That is so incredibly far off the mark that it is just ridiculous.
 
.
.
It is around a billion dollars per 1,000MW generating capacity, so something is far more wrong with this pricing than what you say.

That quotation is for conventional plants, like coal, oil or gas. If you talk about Nuclear and Hydro, it is always way more than that as feasibility studies cost a lot more along with the technology. Constructing a 1000 MW nuclear plant or Dam is way more challenging than a simple fossil fuel plant.

I believe this cost also includes the cost for the processed nuclear fuel. Once fueled, depending on the design of the reactor they won't need refueling for another decade. For fossil fuel plants, the initial capital is more then, add the fuel cost over 10 years, it will be way more than this.

Unless stated otherwise, i would assume this cost of the nuclear plants includes the cost for the fuel etc.

Whereas the $1million/MW quote for conventional plants does not take into account fuel costs, which for a country like Pakistan is expensive, since it needs to be imported.

Here is a link i found which explains nuclear plant fueling.

NEI Nuclear Notes: What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

Generally, the plants need refueling every 2-6 years. But as i said, it depends on design.

Nuclear power in short term is no way cheap. But if you distribute the cost over, say, 20-30 years (typical life of a conventional or nuclear plant) then it nuclear comes ahead.

Germany and France were smart enough to realize this and built nuclear plants to supply 80% of their electricity needs. Since the cost of nuclear fuel remained stable over the years, they were able to use cheaper electricity to power their industries. No wonder France and Germany are the two true dominant economies of Europe and indeed, the world.


Now, the problem i have, is that do we have the infrastructure in place to deal with the kind of disaster that struck Japan? Putting up two nuclear plants next to Karachi might not be a very wise idea.

Secondly, 2200 MW is peanuts, considering the plants will take years to complete, if ever completed.
 
.
That quotation is for conventional plants, like coal, oil or gas. If you talk about Nuclear and Hydro, it is always way more than that as feasibility studies cost a lot more along with the technology. Constructing a 1000 MW nuclear plant or Dam is way more challenging than a simple fossil fuel plant.

I believe this cost also includes the cost for the processed nuclear fuel. Once fueled, depending on the design of the reactor they won't need refueling for another decade. For fossil fuel plants, the initial capital is more then, add the fuel cost over 10 years, it will be way more than this.

Unless stated otherwise, i would assume this cost of the nuclear plants includes the cost for the fuel etc.

Whereas the $1million/MW quote for conventional plants does not take into account fuel costs, which for a country like Pakistan is expensive, since it needs to be imported.

Here is a link i found which explains nuclear plant fueling.

NEI Nuclear Notes: What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

Generally, the plants need refueling every 2-6 years. But as i said, it depends on design.

Nuclear power in short term is no way cheap. But if you distribute the cost over, say, 20-30 years (typical life of a conventional or nuclear plant) then it nuclear comes ahead.

Germany and France were smart enough to realize this and built nuclear plants to supply 80% of their electricity needs. Since the cost of nuclear fuel remained stable over the years, they were able to use cheaper electricity to power their industries. No wonder France and Germany are the two true dominant economies of Europe and indeed, the world.


Now, the problem i have, is that do we have the infrastructure in place to deal with the kind of disaster that struck Japan? Putting up two nuclear plants next to Karachi might not be a very wise idea.

Secondly, 2200 MW is peanuts, considering the plants will take years to complete, if ever completed.


Please consider the following source with good relevant data:

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OpenEI Transparent Cost DatabasePlant TypeLevelized Cost of
Energy (USD/MWh)Overnight
Capital Cost
(1000xUSD/kW)Fixed
Operating Cost
(USD/kW)Variable
Operating Cost
(USD/MWh)Capacity
Factor (%)MaxMedianMinMaxMedianMinMaxMedianMinMaxMedianMinMaxMedianMinWind, onshore12060202.601.571.1360.0010.9510.95236.455.0250.43818.4Wind, offshore200100708.003.052.1618014.2814.284021.1813544327Solar PV5902801509.505.102.5011032.036.44000282115.48Solar CSP300200608.095.743.2014255.727.8025.50.10.106531.1621.84Geothermal Hydrothermal14060405.942.821.63229155.4168.33000958575Blind Geothermal1006.85222.9800095Enhanced Geothermal130130607.257.001.78199.69199.69134.05403059584.680Small Hydropower1404.5013000050Hydropower12020204.001.320.507513.1412.725.943.202.4293.293.235Ocean21022023011.346.004.5010000025.5Biopower17070107.662.620.36369.2866.6312.0029.124.61.018584.0475Distributed Generation480140509.801.801.318016.5816.03517.377.1275Fuel Cell1501501407.004.643.808505.655.5047.9247.925.7895Natural Gas Combined Cycle7050101.680.880.5145.6013.715.508.092.861.299384.640Natural Gas Combustion Turbine11070608.095.743.2014.5210.535.2629.903.572.67928010Coal, pulverized, scrubbed12050108.401.920.5633.6027.5013.085.903.701.629384.680Coal, pulverized, unscrubbed4040405.014.453.9484.6Coal, integrated gasification
combined cycle180806011.003.172.22130.0338.6725.0011.127.251.1580.9680.9675Nuclear12060408.203.102.2812785.6612.806.00.49.4290.249085
 
.
Back
Top Bottom