b*****s
发帖数: 93 | 1 有没有消息灵通人士进来证实一下这则消息，首先在博讯看到一篇讲中国核能的文章，
中间关于高铁的一段把人吓了一跳，然后搜到了《纽约客》上的原文。
有关段落的摘抄：
“最近中国铁道部长刘志军因受贿控罪下台，牵出高铁施工中的弊案——承包商铺设高
铁的水泥基座时，使用便宜的劣质固化剂。这将会使列车难以保持目前每小时350公里
的超高速。”
“Most recently, when Liu Zhijun, chief of the Chinese Railways Ministry was
sacked on corruption charges, it emerged that his agency—celebrated for
installing high-speed trains—installed concrete bases for the nation’s
train tracks that used cheap, faulty chemical hardening agents, which don’t
allow trains to maintain their current speeds of about two hundred and
seventeen miles per hour for long.”
原文链接：
http://w2.peacehall.com/forum/201103/boxun2011/167472.shtml
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2011/03/chinas-
附原文：
[博讯论坛] 日本大海啸引发核电厂危机，中国的核电厂也引人关注。美国《纽约
客》杂志（The New Yorker）3月14日刊登奥斯诺斯（Evan Osnos）发自北京的博客说
，去年11月19日，一宗新闻并未引起太多人的注意。
当天北京市第一中级人民法院判决中国“头号央企”——核工业集团公司原总经理
、党组书记、中共十七届中央委员康日新受贿罪成立，处以无期徒刑，并没收个人全部
财产。康日新是136家中央国企“一把手”中，唯一一个中共中央委员。他受贿犯罪期
间，正领导着世界上最具雄心的核电厂建造计划。计划完成后，中国将新核电厂的数量
，将比全世界现有核电厂的总数还多。仅今后10年，中国就会新增24座核反应堆，将核
电量增加4倍，达到400亿瓦。面对如此快的核电发展速度，中国国家核安全局局长李干
杰2009年公开警告说，如果不能确保核电厂建筑达到最高标准，中国可能遭遇安全及环
境风险。他在2009年的“国际核能部长级会议”上说：“在现阶段，如果我们对核能领
域的超速扩张没有充分认识，将危及核电厂的建筑质量和操作安全。”
康日新受贿2.6亿元人民币。他主要的敛财手段，就是在核电厂建筑投标中作弊。
布雷德谢尔（Keith Bradsher）在《时代》周刊上写道：“康先生的决策完全没有公开
，无疑会危及核电厂的建筑状况。他的案例，令人忧虑中国的核电计划管理层做决策时
，并非始终坚持安全第一。”
中国目前独特的能源战略困境是：既要扩充核电以满足经济对电力的需求，又要替
换严重污染的煤电厂。如果中国的温室排放像过去30年那样持续增加，那么在今后30年
排放的温室气体，就将超过美国有史以来排放量的总和。通过日本核电危机，可以设想
核电厂迅速建造、疏于监管可能导致的后果。许多想象不到的问题，以前都被忽略了。
中国建造了世界级的基础设施，但一个系统扩展太快，难免出现令人担忧的漏洞。最近
中国铁道部长刘志军因受贿控罪下台，牵出高铁施工中的弊案——承包商铺设高铁的水
泥基座时，使用便宜的劣质固化剂。这将会使列车难以保持目前每小时350公里的超高
速。
麻省理工学院的核子科学家卡达克教授（Andrew Kadak），在深圳大亚湾核电厂安
全监察委员会与中国核能官员紧密共事，能够自由进出该厂设施和所有级别的管理部门
。他表示，大亚湾是法国设计的核电厂，保养维护良好。“我们的目标是创造美国式的
操作文化，而中国人很愿意接受”。
卡达克说，目前中国正在建造的核电厂，采用的是最尖端的设计，而日本出事的核
电厂相对老旧得多。但未知的是，核电厂设计能对抗多大规模的地震和海啸，所在的地
点能否经受住今天日本那样的大灾难。至于中国正在设计的核电厂能否承受日本这种规
模的大地震和海啸，卡达克说，“我们每天都进行安全评估和概率风险分析”。他还“
假定”规划人员会对核电厂项目进行地震分析。
The New Yorker
China’s Nuclear Binge
Posted by Evan Osnos
It’s too soon to know what went wrong—and what went as well as could be
expected—at Japan’s nuclear plants, but watching one of the world’s
engineering powers struggle to stem the damage to its plants reminded me of
a squib of news from November that didn’t attract much attention at the
time: a Beijing court gave a life sentence to Kang Rixin, a senior Party
apparatchik convicted of taking bribes and abusing his position to enrich
others. One detail about Kang’s case stands out in retrospect: at the time
of his crimes, he was the head of China’s nuclear-power program, the most
aggressive nuclear-power expansion in the world.
China is in the throes of building more new nuclear power plants than the
rest of the world combined. It is adding twenty-four reactors and
quadrupling its nuclear-power capacity in the coming decade to some forty
gigawatts. The pace is so fast that the country’s nuclear safety chief
publicly warned in 2009 that China would encounter safety and environmental
hazards if it did not make a point of ensuring good construction. “At the
current stage, if we are not fully aware of the sector’s over-rapid
expansions, it will threaten construction quality and operation safety of
nuclear power plants,” Li Ganjie, director of National Nuclear Safety
Administration, told the International Ministerial Conference on Nuclear
Energy in April 2009.
Kang was detained four months later. His was a $260 million corruption case
connected to rigged bids in the construction of nuclear power plants. Keith
Bradsher, in the Times, wrote, “While none of Mr. Kang’s decisions
publicly documented would have created hazardous conditions at nuclear
plants, the case is a worrisome sign that nuclear executives in China may
not always put safety first in their decision-making.”
China presents a unique dilemma for energy strategists: it is expanding
nuclear power in a race to meet rising demand for electricity and replace
heavily polluting coal power plants. If China’s greenhouse emissions keep
rising at the rate they have for the past thirty years, the country will
emit more of those gases in the next thirty years than the United States has
in its entire history. But this week has laid out in all the detail we
could imagine what could result from the combination of rapid construction,
poor oversight, and events that were previously dismissed as unimaginable.
In some cases China builds world-class pieces of infrastructure, but we have
also seen a steady drip of deeply disconcerting examples of a system
growing too fast for its own good. Most recently, when Liu Zhijun, chief of
the Chinese Railways Ministry was sacked on corruption charges, it emerged
that his agency—celebrated for installing high-speed trains—installed
concrete bases for the nation’s train tracks that used cheap, faulty
chemical hardening agents, which don’t allow trains to maintain their
current speeds of about two hundred and seventeen miles per hour for long.
So, how do some of these Chinese plants look up close? For that, I called
Andrew Kadak, a professor of nuclear science at M.I.T., who has worked
closely with Chinese nuclear officials at the Daya Bay plant in Shenzhen. “
I served on a safety oversight board at the Daya Bay plant, and we had free
access to the facilities, including all levels of management. These are
basically French-designed plants, and they were very well maintained. And
our goal was to try to create a U.S.-type operating culture, and we tried to
do that, and the Chinese were very receptive to that.” He went on, “The
plants that are now being built have all the current state-of-the-art
designs in them. The plants that failed [in Japan] were relatively old. That
’s the good part. The unknown, of course, is how do you plan for a
humongous earthquake and a humongous tidal wave, especially when they are
situated in a place vulnerable to this kind of upset.”
I asked if Chinese plants are being designed to defend against those kinds
of events. “Our safety reviews were more about day-to-day safety. We looked
at their probabilistic risk analysis.” They did not have access to seismic
analyses, Kadak said. “I’m assuming that the regulator would be doing
that.” |
|
