US Approves Two New Nuclear Reactors 596
JoeRobe writes "For the first time in 30 years, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved licenses to build two new nuclear reactors in Georgia. These are the first licenses to be issued since the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. The pair of facilities will cost $14 billion and produce 2.2 GW of power (able to power ~1 million homes). They will be Westinghouse AP1000 designs, which are the newest reactors approved by the NRC. These models passively cool their fuel rods using condensation and gravity, rather than electricity, preventing the possibility of another Fukushima Daiichi-type meltdown due to loss of power to cooling water pumps." Adds Unknown Lamer: "Expected to begin operation in 2016 or 2017, the pair of new AP1000 reactors will produce around 2GW of power for the southeast. This is the first of the new combined construction and operating licenses ever issued by the NRC; hopefully this bodes well for the many other pending applications."
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about time we did something to address our growing energy needs.
Now if we can get politicians to quit treating building more oil refining capacity as a political football, we might take another meaningful step toward energy independence.
Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
If we are going to adopt electric cars in a big way, we need this badly.
Glad to hear it.
-Eric
Re:No More Nuclear Waste Siting Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but all the disposal problems have not been solved. There is one remaining issue of "environmentalist" obstructionism. I use quotes, because these people are damaging the environment, not protecting it.
Fairewind comments on AP1000 (Score:4, Insightful)
"The NRC thinks the probability of three nuclear reactors having a meltdown within 3 days is ZERO. They chose this to minimize the cost of development of the AP1000 reactor."
That's because the NRC is a sock puppet for the Commercial Nuclear Industry.
https://plus.google.com/107839599438746451936/posts/gEhU26JjGWV [google.com]
And three, two, one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cue the environmentalists to come running out of the woodwork, filing every lawsuit they can find, protesting the work site, and in general trying to slow down and interfere with the construction of said nuclear power plant.
The level of public ignorance never ceases to amaze.
Re:Typical (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a renaissance of manufacturing going on in the American south. Look at all the foreign auto makers that have built factories there. Wages are affordable for the company, there are no union entanglements like those which have ravaged Detroit, areas where good paying jobs are few and far between receive them - everyone wins.
Re:No More Nuclear Waste Siting Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is one remaining issue of "environmentalist" obstructionism. I use quotes, because these people are damaging the environment, not protecting it.
This is true. If you oppose nuclear, a coal plant will be built in its place, which is far, far more dirty and dangerous.
Re:No More Nuclear Waste Siting Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
PRISM [wikipedia.org] / IFR designs [wikipedia.org] in general (and Molten salt breeders [wikipedia.org], in theory) turn that "waste" into enough fuel to supply the earth ... forever, assuming we build pyroprocessing [wikipedia.org] facilities (PUREX generates a lot of waste ... no good).
"In theory". Aye, there's the rub.
We really need more active research in this area instead of relying on experiments conducted in the 1960's.
Re:No More Nuclear Waste Siting Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear energy when well maintained is a relativity good energy source. Its pollution for good or for bad is highly concentrated meaning the good means it can be captured and moved to a safer location, the bad is if a little bit leaks out it could be very deadly, and difficult to pick up again. However right now our pollution problem is in extra carbon. Nuclear energy can help reduce our carbon dependence, the combined risk of continued use of Coal even when treated well is worse then nuclear energy being properly respected and governed.
Re:No More Nuclear Waste Siting Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
whoosh
Is that the sound of the GP's post going over your head? Because he's absolutely right. There are many excellent technical solutions to the question of waste disposal, but all of them are rendered infeasible by political considerations.
$6.36 per Watt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No More Nuclear Waste Siting Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I object to burying 95% perfectly good fuel just to dispose of 5% waste. Run that FUEL through an appropriately designed reactor first, then process out the waste and load the rest back in.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:because we learned nothing from Fukushima (Score:5, Insightful)
Per kilowatt nuclear is the safest when all things are taken into account. The problem with nuclear power is the worst case scenario: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. So that is the balancing effect.
A crude analogy would be comparing cars to airplanes by mile traveled.
Re:About time (Score:2, Insightful)
It's about time we did something to address our growing energy needs.
Now if we can get politicians to quit treating building more oil refining capacity as a political football, we might take another meaningful step toward energy independence.
How about if we use less energy? Sound familiar?
I remember when I didn't have seven items in the same room needing an outlet - there was a TV, a lamp and maybe a small floor heater. Now I have a computer, with a monitor, a sound system and a laser printer, each with its own cord. The item in the room consuming the most power is the computer. Further, I have various wall-wart powered devices, which are on less frequently. I don't think my electric needs are unique, either. With 100 million people on computers, whether at home or work, we're chewing through the watts like crazy, even with energy saving lamps.
Re:because we learned nothing from Fukushima (Score:5, Insightful)
By "we learned nothing" do you mean we didn't learn to stop relying on 40 year-old nuclear power plants built using 50-60 year old designs? Because I'm pretty sure building new designs shows that we did, in fact, learn exactly that.
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:because we learned nothing from Fukushima (Score:2, Insightful)
Right and Global Warming is a myth. You just keep praying away the problems.
Re:$6.36 per Watt (Score:4, Insightful)
Because that is installed capacity (GW) and not actually energy production (GWh). So since your solar only produces power 1/2 of the day and reduces power based on latitude and season your actual costs $/GWh is much higher.
Re:No More Nuclear Waste Siting Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Burning it may be cleaner than coal - but getting it out of the ground in a safe and clean manner is proving to be far less clear-cut.
I live on top of the Marcellus Shale formation - I'd rather have a nuke plant or two open up a mile from me than to have gas drilling anywhere in this state. The drilling companies have an attitude of "it's safe, we're drilling responsibly, trust us, nothing has ever gone wrong, that spill didn't happen, we don't need to change anything because it's fine the way it is". Compared to the nuclear industry - "Even though we already have the lowest deaths per terawatt-hour count of any form of power generation, we're STILL working to improve our safety designs." - This is the thing that earns the most trust from me, the fact that they are constantly striving to improve safety, instead of constantly denying that there could possibly be any problems and refusing to change anything.
Re:No More Nuclear Waste Siting Problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No More Nuclear Waste Siting Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because that's what is holding up nuclear power. After all, the problem with heavy metals and other pollutants used to manufacture "green" energy such as solar cells and wind turbines have already been solved, as well as the problems with mercury, other contaminants, and even radioactive materials that comes from burning coal has also been solved. Oh, and that whole CO2 thing that fossil fuels tend to emit? Also solved.
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you, President Carter. Rather than address the problem we should just all put on a sweater?
Re:because we learned nothing from Fukushima (Score:2, Insightful)
There ain't no other choice right now that will meet demand and not generate CO2. There is a downside but it's the least bad choice right now. How many wind farms or solar ones can produce that kind of base load? 2.2GW and with reprocessing the fuel should last long enough to get fusion figured out and then antimatter reactors would be the final step.
Everything is tied to energy. With it, anything is possible. Without it even the Stone Age wouldn't have been as goo because at least we had fire.
Re:because we learned nothing from Fukushima (Score:5, Insightful)
We can compare the oil spills in the gulf, and not just the BP one, there are others that have been reported to still be spewing out crap. Those are "gifts that keep on giving". There are large swaths of the seabed that are just lifeless now.
Contrast that to the area around the worst nuclear disaster in world history. Years later, it has become a game preserve. Were it not for the rad meters, it has become an ecological paradise where nature has come back.
If Chernobyl is the worst nuclear disaster we ever will have, while undersea drilling is still a nascent technology where a blowout can happen at any time, I'm all for nuclear power with only caveat.
The caveat is that in today's economy, there is no responsibility. Stakeholders have been replaced by shareholders. A reactor head can be made out of pot metal, be installed, and it fails. The company that made it can just shrug, file bankruptcy, the owner of the company take his golden parachute and live in the Bahamas. What would be needed is regulation where if there is malfeasance, there will be people going to prison and fortunes taken away, and not just pawns thrown under the bus to appease the masses, then back to business as usual.
Re:because we learned nothing from Fukushima (Score:5, Insightful)
Nail, hit head.
Nuclear power done right brings a lot to the table:
1: It is energy dense, so it doesn't take up valued land. Solar and wind farms are great, but energy losses through wires cause those to become not feasible.
2: A reprocessing, "breeder" reactor can reduce the need for high level waste dumps.
3: Reactor fuel is relatively cheap and abundant. When uranium becomes an issue, there is always thorium (although that is still a research leap ahead.)
4: Safety. The deaths per terawatt figures completely show this.
And it only will get better. The reactors in use today are designs built when disco was in fashion and people wore leisure suits. Modern reactor designs are generations ahead in safety, usability, and economy than the existing reactors that are on life support. Take an implemention of a traveling wave reactor. If done right, there would be zero need to enrich uranium, and the by-products are useful items.
Had we had nuclear power R&D in the 1970s and 1980s, I'd probably say we would be at least 20-50 years ahead in technological growth than we are now. Even the need for petroleum wouldn't be much, as any oil would be used for polymers, rather than burned. Even used plastics can be "boiled" via a thermal depolymerization reaction and reused.
I'm happy to see some sort of energy progress in the US other than gas and oil.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Using more energy is a good thing because its a sign you are capable of things that require that much power.
Or a sign of inefficiency.
Re:About time (Score:2, Insightful)
Now if we can get politicians to quit treating building more oil refining capacity as a political football, we might take another meaningful step toward energy independence.
What does refining capacity have to do with energy independence?
Never mind that refineries are shutting down because of low utilization rates and cut-throat competition (IE big refineries buying out small refineries and shutting them down to raise profits). A significant portion of our refining capacity is currently used to export finished oil products.
There isn't anywhere close to enough oil in the USA that can be pulled out of the ground fast enough to satisfy our oil demands (oil is the biggest contributor to energy dependence on foreign countries).
The only way to achieve energy dependence is to cut oil demand in half through a combination of efficiency and moving oil powered transport onto other fuels through electrification of the motor vehicle fleet where it makes sense.
At which point we'll have an even bigger surplus of refining capacity.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Arguing for efficiency is fine, but that's not what GP was doing.
And we are improving the efficiency. Smartphones that run circles around desktops that used 100x more energy, LED lamps that use way less energy than incandescents, better insolation materials while reducing heat that needs to be produced, etc.
But that doesn't mean that we won't still need more energy. Hell, developing countries alone will need it to reach anywhere near what we have right now.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
When on average about 2/3rds of the energy we use is thrown away as waste heat before we can actually use it (never mind that ultimately ALL energy we use ends up as heat), there's plenty of room for reductions in energy use through efficiency.
Re:No More Nuclear Waste Siting Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
How To Be Modded Down When Discussing Nuclear Pwr (Score:4, Insightful)
How to be modded up: create a duality of only nuclear and coal options for energy production; belittle the dangers and significance of nuclear disaster; insist that there isn't any issue with waste from nuclear plants and that we will 'use it all up'.
How to be modded down: mention that uranium is a finite source and that we WILL eventually deal with a depletion in the same way we're facing oil; inject that the costs of insuring nuclear plants are outrageous and that no private firms will (leaving it to governments [ie: citizens] to cover in the event of an emergency); highlight that it takes DECADES to get a plant to operating status (how is that going to help now, next year, or in the next 10 years?) Fact is: nuclear is *expensive*. Finally, a sure-fired way to be modded down is to insist that we have technology accessible to us NOW that can reduce emissions and is not nearly as expensive (environmentally or economically) as nuclear will be.
FYI, on my own habits - i rarely mod down a post, unless it's blatantly ignorant of any factual matter, and even then it's rare. As suggested, i try to use my mod points to mod up, not down. Would love to see a bit more of that here for a more balanced display of discussion on this subject...
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
How about if we use less energy? Sound familiar?
I'm all for more efficient devices that use less energy while still giving me everything the more power hungry devices give me. I'm not willing use less energy if it means that I lose anything by doing so.
I remember when I didn't have seven items in the same room needing an outlet - there was a TV, a lamp and maybe a small floor heater. Now I have a computer, with a monitor, a sound system and a laser printer, each with its own cord...
Yeah, yeah, yeah...let's assume every single person on the planet cuts their total energy usage by half (which is an insane and completely unrealistic goal). We had a population of 3 billion people in this planet in 1960. By 2000, we had doubled that to 6 billion. Basically, you've cut the standard of living of everyone and the only thing you've accomplished is gain us a few decades before we're right at the same place again, except now it's even harder to cut down on energy usage because there's less to cut. That's not counting the fact that as the developing countries catch up, their population will be using more energy.
Do you want to lower your carbon impact on this planet? Have less children. Contributing to negative population growth is the greenest thing you can do.
Why can't we find a better way? (Score:2, Insightful)
i hear so many 'claims' about how wind , solar, etc etc are all primed to take off and fix the power problem.
The fact we are still building nuclear reactors that run ( an extraordinarily low ) chance of causing HUGE casualties and making land uninhabitable for LIFETIMES , is unconscionable, if those claims are true.
Does anyone have any hard facts on the cost of electricity coming from solar or wind vs the same from Nuclear? Are the reasons primarily economic , or is their physics problems also preventing the use of other means to generate power?
aka , why are we building these instead of solar and wind farms?
I'm not trolling here, i'd really love some serious answers by someone who knows more about it then me.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing you're referring to the flawed analysis? That is nowhere near the same thing as a design flaw. The NRC DID call them on it and delayed approval until the analysis was done to their satisfaction. That sure seems like they care, doesn't it? I am guessing because I don't want to play the guess which scripts you have to allow to make this page work game right now.
Other than that one, all I can find are vague innuendos complaining that Westinghouse didn't instantly address problems found in other, different designs (not even THEIR designs!) within hours of discovery.
What (if any) outstanding issues might there be? I'm all for caution (particularly as a resident of Ga.), but some of this is total nonsense and the rest seems to be addressed.
Re:Nah, Georgia Power Scam! (Score:4, Insightful)
You are going to be one of the few not screwed when the dinosaurs start running out. And they'll be closing those dirty plants down the way when coal is more expensive than gold. Isn't this still a good outcome long-term, even if it costs now?
Re:About time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
More people is a good thing too? Everyone in the world coming up to US energy consumption?
Another way to get more energy per individuals is to have fewer individuals. Now that would be progress!
Consider - until 1980 most people in China, the world's most populous nation, used very little energy - electrical or petrol.
They are increasing, per capita and en masse. China as it raises the standard of living of each individual places an increasing burden upon available resources as they approach the level, per capita, of the United States - a nation at least 5 times the population of the United States. Think about where this is going.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
I stopped watching after about 10 minutes. Gundersen does have a master's degree in Nuclear Engineering, but it seems he's always been a consultant rather than directly involved in the industry. Arguments presented in the first 10 minutes below in italics
We've never tested a large water tank on top of a reactor in a full scale test.
I don't really understand this; the actual source of heat is irrelevant when you are engineering a gravity-fed water tank, and that's pretty damned well understood.
It hasn't been approved yet. What's the rush? We should incorporate design changes from Fukushima and restart certification.
IOW, we're almost done with a design, so lets make a bunch of changes now and restart certification. I'll tell you what the rush is: we need to build new reactors and decommission the old known-to-be-unsafe ones. You know, the ones the people funding you are trying to get shut down. Just because a 1957 Chevy is dangerous to drive doesn't mean we should delay rolling out a Volvo S60 because it isn't "perfect" yet. Yes we should keep changing new designs but at some point you have to say "this is way better than what we currently have, let's build them".
Pressure at Fukushima raised up to 0.7 lbs within AP1000's design limit. The control rods might not go down when you try to stop it (after a partial meltdown, which falls into the "no shit" category).
This would be relevant if the reactors were at all similar internally. Hint: Fukushima was an ancient boiling water design, obsolete even when it was built. The AP1000 is much newer non-boiling design, and is much more amenable to passive cooling approaches. Yes, it is true that modern gasoline engines are not built to specifications for safe steam engines, which had quite a problem with boiler explosions.
Tank on the roof could fail. Seismic analysis indicates weight on roof is always bad (they appear unaware of counterweights used in tall buildings).
The alternative of course is tanks on the ground and active pumps, which is where we came from previously and are trying to avoid now. In other words, no solution is acceptable, let's not build anything. A corollary of that is that crappy old designs will continue to run. If this ends up a bad design for earthquake zones, it would still make sense to build them in seismically stable locations and replace known-bad power sources.
Terrorists could try to blow up the water tank!
This is apparently coordinated with an earlier attack on the primary method, since the water tank is the backup. People need to seriously give up on the airliner hijack thing -- yes our old rules on dealing with hijacking were flawed. They've now been patched, and passengers and the air force know what [not] to do. In fact those rules were already patched *on 9/11* as Flight 93 demonstrated. Terrorists are also opportunistic anyway, and will always seek an easy new attack route, rather than one that has been tried before (leaving responders prepared).
Shrapnel from an exploding neighboring reactor could peirce the tank!
Cool let's build the AP1000 and shut down the ones that can explode, ok? The alternative is to find new sites for a nuclear plant, which will take from decades to never given the same groups opposing them.