New US reactor to take delivery of fuel, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 08:16 AM by mikellmikell

The plant down the road is prepping for 2 more reactors. Our company lost a bunch of designers and such. They plan on staring in 3 years. Good news about 3000 jobs for the construction and another 1000 to operate. I have a large campground and that means a lot of money for me for 10 -15 years probably 20000$ a month more income

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 09:33 AM by thorfourwinds

Originally posted by mikellmikell
The plant down the road is prepping for 2 more reactors.

Our company lost a bunch of designers and such.

They plan on starting in 3 years. Good news, about 3000 jobs for the construction and another 1000 to operate.

I have a large campground and that means a lot of money for me for 10 -15 years probably 20000$ a month more income

Greetings:

Welcome and thank you for your time, consideration and participation.

Good news about your campground - and what a place to have "an ear to the ground" on what's really happening at the facility.

You are the ATS eyes and ears on this one and we, for one, would welcome your continuing input - if you accept the assignment - this message will self-destruct in ...

We'll hazard a guess that the plant "down the road" is TVA Watts Bar 2:

TVA Watts Bar 2 is scheduled to be completed and come online in 2013.

Watts Bar 2

While the focus is on new technology, TVA undertook a detailed feasibility study which led to its decision in 2007 to complete unit 2 of its Watts Bar nuclear power plant in Tennessee.

The 1177 MWe reactor was expected to start up in October 2012 and come on line in 2013 at a cost of about $2.5 billion, but this schedule has slipped a few months.

Construction was suspended in 1985 when 80% complete and resumed in October 2007 under a still-valid permit, and is progressing on time and budget.

Its twin, Unit 1, started operation in 1996.

Completing Watts Bar 2 utilizes an existing asset, thus saving time and cost relative to alternatives for new base-load capacity.

It was expected to provide power at 4.4 ¢/kWh, 20-25% less than coal-fired or new nuclear alternatives and 43% less than natural gas.

It is a regulated plant, with guaranteed cost recovery.

World Nuclear Association

And:

Unit 2 Construction Project

TVA is currently working to finish the partially completed Unit 2.

Unit 2 was about 80% complete when its construction was stopped in 1988.

The official reason given for halting construction was a decrease in demand for electricity.

Unit 2 remains partly completed (several of its parts being used on other TVA units), but on August 1, 2007 the TVA Board approved completion of the unit.

Construction resumed on October 15, 2007, with the reactor expected to begin operation in 2012.

The project is expected to cost $2.5 billion, and employ around 2,300 contractor workers.

Once finished, it is estimated to produce 1,180 megawatts and create around 250 permanent jobs.

This is a landmark project in that Unit 2 will be the first new nuclear reactor to come online in the USA in more than a decade.

Once completed, Unit 2 is expected to receive a 40-year operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Wikipedia

In order to meet the competition to generate electricity, nuclear utilities across the country are already receiving legislated bailouts to pass on to an essentially indentured consumer tens of billions of dollars in "stranded costs" boondoggled over decades of cost-plus nuclear power construction projects.

It is a regulated plant, with guaranteed cost recovery.

(...)
With their cost recovery mechanisms guaranteed, utilities are now selling their nukes to newly emerging corporate entities through licensing transfers in what amounts to a corporate shell game with price tags a fraction of their original construction cost.

Nuclear Information & Resource Service

We look forward to further communication and thank you for your participation.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 12:52 PM by Hugues de Payens

reply to post by thorfourwinds

The picture in your last post is not Watts Bar.....there are only two cooling towers at WB. I visit the area occaisionally and have been on the dam and on the lake several times.

I will say, however, the information you have posted thus far has been very informative. Thanks for your time and effort.

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 07:39 PM by thorfourwinds

Originally posted by Hugues de Payens
reply to post by thorfourwinds

The picture in your last post is not Watts Bar.....there are only two cooling towers at WB. I visit the area occaisionally and have been on the dam and on the lake several times.

I will say, however, the information you have posted thus far has been very informative. Thanks for your time and effort.

Greetings:

Thank you for your time, consideration and participation.

Perhaps the following will be of interest:

History of Nuclear Power - TVA to Restart Construction of Watts Bar 2

We were/are mistaken/mislead/confused/stupid

and regretfully, failed our due diligence regarding the veracity of that particular photo.

However, during the research, we couldn't help but admiring the write-up on the TriCities.com

This is priceless:

Watts Bar 2 Nuclear Reactor to Open in 2012

TVA's Spring City, TN plant first new nuclear reactor in 16 years.
(...)
“We were an immature technology at the time and we made some mistakes,” said Swafford, “but I think the investment in our training programs and our operators, and the precision and skill and standards that we built into the day to day operations has kind of put most of that in the back window.”

WTF?

We are willing to bet that is what TEPCO spouted in Japan prior to 3-11.

How is that working out for them?

Are you serious? What 'precision and skill and standards that we built into the day to day operations' absolutely guarantees that even the spent fuel stored on-site is completely safe from - say - a scenario that includes the electrical grid going down and roads made impassable by an earthquake/tsunami/asteroid - therefore, the back-up diesel generators fail from lack of fuel.

Another "that can't happen" scenario?

Is that why there is no contingency planning for evacuations over 80,000 people in case of an "accident?'

Answer this one, anyone, if you please.

'Has kind of...?'

Is Fukushima Dai-ichi "in the back window, too?

(...)To create electricity, control rods are inserted into the fuel rods - that splits uranium atoms releasing energy in the form of heat. Tennessee River water is pumped into the reactor core, where it turns to steam. That steam turns turbines and powers the generator.
(...)
“You’re piling up a lot of highly radioactive material along the rivers [color=orange]and hoping it doesn't get out into the drinking water or get exposed[/color],” he said.

Swafford says TVA closely monitors its radioactive waste, but agrees the industry needs a better solution.

What about the idea of a moratorium on new construction and license extension until this "waste problem" is solved?

Anyway, we hope we cleared up the mislabeled photo.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw

reply posted on 16-10-2011 @ 06:06 PM by SirMike

reply to post by thorfourwinds

How are ANY of the posts you put in this thread direclty related to the fueling of Watts Bar? Heres a hint, they are not.

Its not that I disagree with you on this subject, its your style of spamming every nuclear related thread with this garbage that bothers me. If you want to debate "me" on this, lets go to the debate forum .... something tells me I would enjoy eating you alive.

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 08:52 PM by thorfourwinds

reply posted on 13-11-2011 @ 11:39 AM by princeofpeace

FAIL. Its not because of weapons....the US already has enough plutonium and uranium to build tens of thousands of bombs...new reactors are not needed.

Originally posted by CoincidenceX

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by thorfourwinds
What do you think about a call to action - focussing on first stopping any new construction of a nuclear power plant that does not have a waste-disposal plan in place - such as the highly-publicized Yucca Mountain?

All of the used nuclear fuel generated in every nuclear plant in the past 50 years would fill a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards, and 96 % of this "waste" can be recycled.

Why are you guys so hellbent on stopping nuclear power? Nuclear power has killed far fewer people than any other power source excluding solar power. There have been a total of three nuclear related accidents in the past 50 years, one of which could have been easily prevented if basic safety measures hadn't been ignored, one of which harmed nobody, and one of which took an entire tsunami to cause.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

Its not about stopping nuclear power, its about investing in more-efficient, safer thorium reactors.

It has been estimated that the nuclear energy available in thorium is greater than that available from all of the world’s oil, coal and uranium combined. Thorium is approximately three times as abundant as uranium in the earth’s crust

So its more abundant and less-expensive and has the capacity to produce more energy than the conventional process.... the only reason the USG isn't seriously interested in it is because you can't produce plutonium for weapons. lol