Approval for first nuclear new build in America

Approval for first nuclear new build in America

www.world-nuclear-news.org

American safety regulators gave the go-ahead today for the construction of two new nuclear power reactors.
The vote by the five-member commission brought to an end a regulatory process lasting almost four years that confirmed the safety of building two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the Vogtle site in Georgia. It is the first combined construction and operating licence issued by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
thehill.com
www.southerncompany.com
nuclearstreet.com

I'm sure this news will please some.

The actual NRC review process was completed about three months ago, but there is a delay of several months for, I presume, public comment. The five NRC commissioners then voted on whether to approve it or not. 4 of 5 commissioners voted yes. In my opinion, it is about time this happened - the design is far safer than anything built before, each day it is delayed will likely be costing the utility money, and the review process lasts many, many, years.

New nuclear power reactors are usually noncompetitive in the USA compared with natural gas and coal, however in the South-East, the cost of delivery for these are higher - making nuclear cost effective, hence Vogtle 3&4 are getting built. The reactors will also likely last 60 years, as these ones are designed to from the outset.

Construction will employ up to 5000 people.

The reactors will be Westinghouse AP1000s that do not require any electricity for three days to keep the fuel rods in the reactor and spent fuel pool intact. Additionally the reactors are not going to be located in a high seismic or tsunami risk area.

This news comes following the release (for public comment) of an analysis about a week ago called 'State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses '(SOARCA) that found that the effects of a severe accident at an existing nuclear power plant would be:

"thousands of times lower than the NRC Safety Goal and millions of times lower than the general U.S. cancer fatality risk.” (pg. xxiii)

and

“... the calculated risks of public health consequences from severe accidents modeled in SOARCA are very small.”

It can therefore be concluded the main effect of a severe accident is not on human health due to radiation exposure - but are rather related to evacuating a large area, perhaps, for a long period of time. SOARCA can be found by entering ML120250406 into the NRC adams search engine.

VC Summer units two and three, also AP1000s, will likely follow over the next several weeks.

www.world-nuclear-news.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Im kind of pissed. You would think that they would reconsider nucular power after all the accidents.

I disagree with new nuclear places being built. That being said, its more of an oh well thing.

I'm neither here nor there on this topic. I like the fact that it is a cheaper way to produce energy and it will help everyone in the long run financially, but on the other hand, I don't like it because of the most recent accidents.

Of course, it's probably just a move to upset Iran by rubbing our nuclear capabilities in their face, while we tell them they can have it.

Nuclear Energy has it's dangers..but has a safe track record overall.

Since the overall American population is about as dumb as rocks..they'll more than likely protest.

I wish all countries would follow Germanys example and shut down all of their nuclear powerplants. There are plenty of alternative forms of producing energy. And free energy wich is stil hidden from us.

The issue isn't so much nuclear/non nuclear but 'what kind of nuclear'.

We are stuck with a lot of legacy 60s reactors world wide built to designs that were not probably the optimal even at that time. The question in the cold war wasn't so much 'whats best' it was 'what can be made to work right now'.

I think the answer to our problems will be polywell fusion, but in the meantime we should be building lots of these

en.wikipedia.org...

Use the passively safe nuclear plants as base load and renewables in conjunction with hydro to handle cyclical demand.

Originally posted by Duceis
Nuclear Energy has it's dangers..but has a safe track record overall.

More people get killed mining coal in a bad year than have been killed by nuclear power plant accidents, and coal continually spews out millions of tons of crap that affect everyone's health for decades - at least nuclear accidents are only occasional!

So, does this warrant a foreign country to invade?

Evidently we are incapable of learning. There have been enough events of nuclear power gone wrong, how is it we cannot see?? I think we will be able to keep warm in the future from the decaying of spent nuclear fuel rods and nuclear bomb leftovers, we will just sit by the green glow and toast mutant marshmallows I guess.

And I is dumb as rocks! I been called worse

Originally posted by Duceis
Since the overall American population is about as dumb as rocks..they'll more than likely protest.

edit on 9-2-2012 by Duceis because: (no reason given)

You got that right because they voted Obama in as President. I for one did notvote for the tool!!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Yeah, like in Finland we have so solid ground that even other countries bury/want to bury their nuclear waste in our ground. Burying nuclear waste just can't go on forever and when the day comes that some natural disaster rips through our solid ground we are fu***d and northern europe become inviable.

No nuclear sounds much better IMO!
Burying nuclear waste in the ground cant be good in long term, it just cant go on forever. Like a ticking timebomb..

reply to post by WeekendWarrior

Yeah, like in Finland we have so solid ground that even other countries bury/want to bury their nuclear waste in our ground. Burying nuclear waste just can't go on forever and when the day comes that some natural disaster rips through our solid ground we are fu***d and northern europe become inviable.

Incorrect on nearly all accounts.

Nuclear waste selected for disposal is sealed into lead-lined, reinforced concrete canisters that emit less radiation than a banana in and of themselves. They are, then, transported to compartmentalized reinforced concrete structures located a hundred meters or more under the bedrock of (often) a mountain.

This can go on indefinitely, as the half-life of the stored materials allows for the 'stock' to be rotated and the depleted materials to be recycled to a number of other industry purposes - vacating space used to store even more materials.

The issue with nuclear waste storage has never been one of contamination. The crust is littered with thorium and uranium (in fact, that's a large reason for the Earth's core temperature - we are sitting atop the warmth of a mild nuclear reactor); even the worst imaginable containment breach inside of one of these facilities would be less of an issue than the unmined fissile materials in our crust, already. The real issue is that of securing the materials to ensure they do not get stolen (for a wide range of purposes - third-party research institutes would pay top dollar for various radioactives; malevolent parties would be looking to create dirty weapons or to use the neutron and beta emissions to breed other radioactives).

No nuclear sounds much better IMO!

No nuclear sounds better than what it actually means. Solar power is simply not cost-effective in the latitudes where the most power is needed (the equator is one of the best suited areas for solar power - but, interestingly enough, is mostly open ocean). Geothermal is really only suited to areas of thin crust. This means that we have to do one of two things: Pay to construct and maintain costly long-distance power distribution grids, or pay to import sources of power derived from fossil fuels.

Sure - there are alternatives like hydro-electric, but those are also location specific. Environmentalists also tend to have a #-fit when we dam up rivers or lock away tide-waters for the purpose of power generation.

So, we're back to fossil fuels, nuclear, or importing 90+% of the power for most regions that require it.

The only one that makes any kind of sense is nuclear, as there is no effective monopoly on the mining of radioactives. Importing of renewable (and non-renewable) power sources will create effective monopolies - just as there is an effective monopoly over oil at this point in time. Areas with goe-thermal power will be building islands, mountains, or whatever suits their whims out of the profits they make exporting power and threatening to hit the breaker if the price demanded is not met. The same with solar.

Burying nuclear waste in the ground cant be good in long term, it just cant go on forever. Like a ticking timebomb..

This isn't hollyweird.

Oh great, can't even trust westinghouse to build a reliable TV to last the ages, lets see how their nuclear reactors work

reply to post by Aim64C
Oh, so its totally cool and harmless? Thanks for helping me out here. Everybody, bring your nuclear waste to Finland, its totlly safe and you can continue it forever


Im not buying..

reply to post by C0bzz


I hope they install a reliable cooling system.

Emission free power generation is the future.

The coal fired power plants need to be shutdown.

reply to post by WeekendWarrior

Oh, so its totally cool and harmless? Thanks for helping me out here. Everybody, bring your nuclear waste to Finland, its totlly safe and you can continue it forever

Actually, I was thinking more like here in the Ozark region of Missouri. There is a lot of granite in these hills and there were plenty of lead mines back in the day. Fairly ideal for storing neutron emitting materials.

You do realize that fly-ash is the cause of more radiation exposure than waste from nuclear reactors, correct?

Here's the thing. You piss your pants when you see the radiation hazard sign. I know better, and drive behind trucks bearing it, leaving the rest of you to drive behind trucks carting around gasoline, chlorine, and other instantaneously lethal hazmat.

Think about it logically. We mine uranium (and/or thorium) from the ground. We, then, speed up the rate of decay so that it generates heat (and more radioactivity). Then, after depleting it of that energy, we pack it up in containers, and store it back in the ground where it came from.

What about that sounds unsustainable? Aside from the fact that it will take us a few thousand years to chew through the -known- supply of fissile materials?

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by WeekendWarrior

 

Oh, so its totally cool and harmless? Thanks for helping me out here. Everybody, bring your nuclear waste to Finland, its totlly safe and you can continue it forever

Actually, I was thinking more like here in the Ozark region of Missouri. There is a lot of granite in these hills and there were plenty of lead mines back in the day. Fairly ideal for storing neutron emitting materials.

You do realize that fly-ash is the cause of more radiation exposure than waste from nuclear reactors, correct?

Here's the thing. You piss your pants when you see the radiation hazard sign. I know better, and drive behind trucks bearing it, leaving the rest of you to drive behind trucks carting around gasoline, chlorine, and other instantaneously lethal hazmat.

Think about it logically. We mine uranium (and/or thorium) from the ground. We, then, speed up the rate of decay so that it generates heat (and more radioactivity). Then, after depleting it of that energy, we pack it up in containers, and store it back in the ground where it came from.

What about that sounds unsustainable? Aside from the fact that it will take us a few thousand years to chew through the -known- supply of fissile materials?

You sir, are making sense. Expect to get flamed by the indoctrinated and fearful.

Have a star for your efforts

reply to post by justwokeup


That sounds great but have we found a good place to put the nuclear waste?

Yucca Mountain? I'm ready for next generation of Nuke plants.