0
billvon

Good news re: nuclear power

Recommended Posts

====================
NRC approves first new nuclear plant in a generation


By Ayesha Rascoe

ROCKVILLE, Maryland | Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:53pm EST

(Reuters) - Regulators on Thursday approved plans to build the first new nuclear power plant in the U.S. in more than 30 years, despite objections of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman, who cited safety concerns stemming from Japan's 2011 Fukushima disaster.

The NRC voted 4-1 to allow Atlanta-based Southern Co to build and operate two new nuclear power reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. The units will cost Southern and partners about $14 billion and enter service as soon as 2016 and 2017.

No nuclear power plants have been licensed in the United States since the partial meltdown of the reactor core of the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979. After the accident, the NRC adopted more stringent safety standards, which caused construction costs for nuclear plants to skyrocket and stopped dozens of planned plants in their tracks.

. . .

The new plant will use AP1000 reactors built by Westinghouse Electric, a standardized design approved by the NRC in December that will be the foundation for several other proposed nuclear plants. Westinghouse is majority owned by Japanese multinational Toshiba Corp.

. . .

Southern's Vogtle project is the first in a queue of permits filed by U.S. utilities, like Scana Corp. These were once expected to usher in a "renaissance" of nuclear power, which now accounts for about 20 percent of U.S. electric generation.

Interest in building new nuclear plants had risen about a decade ago when natural gas prices were soaring and experts thought the U.S. Congress would begin to place limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Between the fall of 2007 and the summer of 2009, 13 companies applied for construction and operating licenses to build 25 new reactors, including units of Southern, Scana Corp, Exelon, Duke Energy, NRG Energy, Progress Energy, Dominion Resources, NextEra Energy and Energy Future Holdings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed
This is good news

OTH

I will be more hopeful once I see how the courts are going to handle the alarmists cases that will be filed
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...despite objections of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman, who cited safety concerns stemming from Japan's 2011 Fukushima disaster...



Well, since the plant is located in Augusta, if a tsuanmi hit the plant, there would be a lot more to worry about.

And yes, I understand that there were failings in backup systems that weren't entirely related to the tsunami at Fukushima.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>And yes, I understand that there were failings in backup systems that weren't entirely
>related to the tsunami at Fukushima.

Ironically the plants in Japan actually withstood the tsunami, but failed when the control systems lost power due to losing their diesel fuel tanks (and lines to other facilities.) The AP1000 does not need power or control to shut down; it's passively safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s good news in a general sense but it won’t be happening in Cali any time in the foreseeable future because the California legislature passed legislation in the 1970’s that created a moratorium on new nuclear fission thermal powerplants unless there is technology for the reprocessing of spent fuel rods and there is approved technology for the disposal of high-end nuclear waste.

I see this as becoming yet another place where power producers outside of California reap the rewards.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>And yes, I understand that there were failings in backup systems that weren't entirely
>related to the tsunami at Fukushima.

Ironically the plants in Japan actually withstood the tsunami, but failed when the control systems lost power due to losing their diesel fuel tanks (and lines to other facilities.) The AP1000 does not need power or control to shut down; it's passively safe.



the cracks in the reactor buildings that leaked out the radioactive water was most likely from the earthquake. the big problem with nuclear is the disposal of the waste and that has still not been figured out how to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

he big problem with nuclear is the disposal of the waste and that has still not been figured out how to be done.



We know how to do it. It's just a matter of where to do it. The technology exists. The politics prevent it.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>the cracks in the reactor buildings that leaked out the radioactive water was most
>likely from the earthquake.

Agreed. But the reason there was radioactive water there to begin with was the lack of cooling, which initially resulted in primary cooling loop water being vented into the concrete containment building, and eventually resulting in explosions that damaged the containment vessels. Had the containment vessel shut down passively the leaks into the concrete structure would likely not have occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

he big problem with nuclear is the disposal of the waste and that has still not been figured out how to be done.



We know how to do it. It's just a matter of where to do it. The technology exists. The politics prevent it.



The problem with radioactive waste isn't that it can't be stored, the problem is that it has to be stored in a way that is sealed forever, and that can not be guaranteed for ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The problem with radioactive waste isn't that it can't be stored, the problem is that it
>has to be stored in a way that is sealed forever, and that can not be guaranteed for
>ever.

Nothing can be guaranteed forever. Heck, even coal waste kills a lot of people, some years after the coal is burned.

But fortunately there's not much nuclear waste compared to the energy it produces, so we can store it in a reasonable space. Dry cask storage in remote areas is pretty safe, and if there is a problem, you just avoid the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


the big problem with nuclear is the disposal of the waste and that has still not been figured out how to be done.



Haven't the French figured this out?





So did the US. The all but completed waste disposal facility in Nevada is being held hostage by Sen. Light Foot Harry Reid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


the big problem with nuclear is the disposal of the waste and that has still not been figured out how to be done.



Haven't the French figured this out?






So did the US. The all but completed waste disposal facility in Nevada is being held hostage by Sen. Light Foot Harry Reid.



that would mean it has not been figured out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clean reliable power from a non-greenhouse gas emitting source which allows the utility to shut down old coal plants

the green power folks are having a difficult time protesting this

the next permits will be 2 more AP1000's in SC, the investment community thinks it is a good idea, stock is up 16% in 3 months
Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


the big problem with nuclear is the disposal of the waste and that has still not been figured out how to be done.



Haven't the French figured this out?



Yes they did. They recycle their nuclear waste. For some reason we insist on burying ours for future generations to deal with.

I think the last total was that we could power our country for 50 years with what we have buried next to the facilities.
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yes they did. They recycle their nuclear waste. For some reason we insist on burying ours for future generations to deal with.

I think the last total was that we could power our country for 50 years with what we have buried next to the facilities.



and I wonder who's laws makes it so restrictive to recycle....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I think the last total was that we could power our country for 50 years with what we
>have buried next to the facilities.

Yep. Problem is we can power it for the next 100 with uranium we dig up. And if you just take into account fuel costs, new fuel is cheaper than reprocessed.

However, reprocessing fuel also solves the waste problem so it's sort of killing two birds with one stone. However we store the waste, it would be a good idea to make sure it's still accessible in 100 years when we start running out of the natural stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

However we store the waste, it would be a good idea to make sure it's still accessible in 100 years when we start running out of the natural stuff.



advocating for Alternate - alternate energy sources

I will never fault you for not being forward thinking. :D

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>The problem with radioactive waste isn't that it can't be stored, the problem is that it
>has to be stored in a way that is sealed forever, and that can not be guaranteed for
>ever.

Nothing can be guaranteed forever. Heck, even coal waste kills a lot of people, some years after the coal is burned.

But fortunately there's not much nuclear waste compared to the energy it produces, so we can store it in a reasonable space. Dry cask storage in remote areas is pretty safe, and if there is a problem, you just avoid the area.




How much waste is there when it is taken out and replaced? Could we put it in a rocket and shoot it into the Sun? It must have been thought about before now. Has it been dismissed as too expensive or too dangerous?
Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>The problem with radioactive waste isn't that it can't be stored, the problem is that it
>has to be stored in a way that is sealed forever, and that can not be guaranteed for
>ever.

Nothing can be guaranteed forever. Heck, even coal waste kills a lot of people, some years after the coal is burned.

But fortunately there's not much nuclear waste compared to the energy it produces, so we can store it in a reasonable space. Dry cask storage in remote areas is pretty safe, and if there is a problem, you just avoid the area.




How much waste is there when it is taken out and replaced? Could we put it in a rocket and shoot it into the Sun? It must have been thought about before now. Has it been dismissed as too expensive or too dangerous?



Surprisingly little is wasted. I don't remember exactly, but somewhere over 90% of the original fissile material is left in a "spent" nuclear core rod. After so much of it is used, the impurities in the rod make it hard to control the reaction so they discard it (AKA: bury) it.

I don't see how it would possibly be cheaper or easier to mine fresh uranium. it takes tons of ore to get a little bit of yellow cake, and tons of yellow cake to get usable uranium.

Good news is it doesn't take that much uranium to power a reactor....
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>How much waste is there when it is taken out and replaced?

The US generates about 47,000 tons a year of spent fuel as waste.

>Could we put it in a rocket and shoot it into the Sun?

Well, yes. But it would take 11 launches a day of our biggest launcher (a Delta IV heavy) to get that much material away from the planet. And at $150 million a launch that's around half a trillion a year to launch that much stuff.

The other problem is that the Delta system has about a 90% success rate - so that's about 4700 tons of nuclear waste ending up in unexpected places a year.

If we really want to get rid of it permanently, just dump it along a subduction zone in the ocean. It will get sucked back into the Earth's mantle and we'll never see it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I don't see how it would possibly be cheaper or easier to mine fresh uranium. it takes
>tons of ore to get a little bit of yellow cake, and tons of yellow cake to get usable
>uranium.

Yep. But if you spill a little of it it's no big deal. Spent nuclear fuel (especially recently removed spent fuel) is some of the most radioactive material on the planet, so it's VERY hard to work with. Most deadly accidents in the nuclear industry occur during handing spent fuel and/or reprocessing it - because there are no minor mistakes in reprocessing.

That's one of the two reasons that reprocessing is a problem. The second reason is that once you have a factory with dozens of people trained how to separate U-235 and plutonium from spent fuel, that's a very big risk for nuclear proliferation. Imagine training 30 people a year on how to run the process, then (eventually) having to fire some. Now you have dozens of disgruntled people in the world who know how to take nuclear waste and extract weapons-grade material from it.

Automating the entire process helps somewhat with both problems, but even the most automated process requires human oversight (and thus both risks.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Now you have dozens of disgruntled people in the world who know how to take nuclear waste and extract weapons-grade material from it.



yup. I have a friend who used to work in that field. He basically isn't allowed to leave the country without permission. I think that's silly because whoever wanted that information could come to him, but he said it's meant to keep him from overseeing the setup of a facility. He said the physics of the process isn't unknown, but doing it safely, reliably, and consistently is a little more tricky.
--
Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0