It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Newest Nuclear Plants Sprout in the U.S. South

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   


The first new nuclear reactor in the U.S. in nearly three decades is taking shape outside Augusta, Ga. Southern Company has dug up a patch of red clay down to bedrock for the foundation of a new AP-1000—a new generation of reactor with passive safety features that keep working even when the power goes out. Southern plans to build two such AP-1000s in the next six years, and other utilities have plans for 12 more, along with another six new reactors of various designs, all of them with passive safety features.


The AP-1000 also has an open-sky design that, in a pinch, uses air currents to cool the reactor. In a departure from standard designs, the outer concrete building that encloses the reactor’s primary concrete and steel shell has vents near the roof. In a meltdown, natural convection would pull in air.
Convection would also spread radioactive particles out through the roofline vents, critics point out. Engineers counter that eliminating all risk is impossible; the best they can do is strike an acceptable balance between safety and cost. “With earthquakes, there are limits to what you can do,” says Michael Golay, a nuclear engineer at M.I.T. “What risk are you willing to tolerate?”

I just don't understand why they don't push fusion reactors instead of the outdated fission ones.
There is a huge difference fusion reactors are very much safer because:
1) They can't "run away"
2) They leave few radioactive products when worn out.
3) They have no radioactive spent fuel.
4) They don't become dangerous if anything fails, they just stop.
Either way the comments made by the engineers does not make me feel to happy for these new power plants. Don't get me wrong, I am all for nuclear power. I just feel we need to invest the money into these power plants to ensure in the midst of chaos, the thing that causes the initial problem, won't be the least of our worries!
Scientific American Link




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnteBellum
I am all for nuclear power. I just feel we need to invest the money into these power plants to ensure in the midst of chaos, the thing that causes the initial problem, won't be the least of our worries!


I agree in trying to invest in new technology. Problem is our society focuses on the "little things here and now" rather than the "bigger things with some work." With such an elusive technology that's understand lender the corporations who want a quick profit.
edit on 10-5-2011 by Mapkar because: Trimmed a picture out to de-hugify the quote.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
you would of thought that they've learned from various catastrophes that fission reactors aren't as safe. I agree with you that they should have fusions instead of fissions. Even though they say it's all safe and stuff, I just don't think it is in my eyes.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

The AP-1000 also has an open-sky design that, in a pinch, uses air currents to cool the reactor. In a departure from standard designs, the outer concrete building that encloses the reactor’s primary concrete and steel shell has vents near the roof. In a meltdown, natural convection would pull in air. Convection would also spread radioactive particles out through the roofline vents, critics point out. Engineers counter that eliminating all risk is impossible; the best they can do is strike an acceptable balance between safety and cost.


Open sky design?
Roof vents?


And this is deemed OK, even though not really safe.....



new topics

top topics
 
7

log in

join