PDA

View Full Version : US licenses first nuclear reactors since 1978



Teh One Who Knocks
02-10-2012, 12:46 AM
By Miguel Llanos, msnbc.com


http://i.imgur.com/ThzS2.jpg

It's been 34 years -- and several nuclear accidents later -- but a divided federal panel on Thursday licensed a utility to build nuclear reactors in the U.S. for the first time since 1978.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's chairman, Gregory Jaczko, opposed licensing the two reactors at this time even though he had earlier praised their design.

"There is still more work" to be done to ensure that lessons learned from Japan's Fukushima disaster last year are engrained in the reactor design, he told his colleagues. "I cannot support this licensing as if Fukushima never happened. I believe it requires some type of binding commitment that the Fukushima enhancements that are currently projected and currently planned to be made would be made before the operation of the facility."

"There is no amnesia," responded Commissioner Kristine Svinick, speaking for the 4-1 majority and noting that the industry has been directed to adopt those lessons.

The licensing covers two reactors estimated to cost $14 billion that the Southern Company wants to add to its existing Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia. Preliminary work has already begun and plans are for the first new reactor to be operating in 2016.

"The project is on track, and our targets related to cost and schedule are achievable," Southern CEO Thomas Fanning said in a statement.

Fanning declined to say why Southern would not agree to include language in the new license to complete potential Fukushima modifications before the reactors come online as Jaczko suggested.

"There will be issues (from the Fukushima review) that apply to the U.S. nuclear fleet, but they apply much more closely to the current fleet, not this newest generation of nuclear technology," Reuters quoted Fanning as saying.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that says it wants to improve nuclear safety not end nuclear power, sided with Jaczko. "The chairman has done the right thing," UCS senior scientist Edwin Lyman told msnbc.com. "It makes no sense to rush into constructing any new reactor before the implications of Fukushima are fully understood and incorporated into NRC regulations."

The Obama administration has stated its support for nuclear power and the industry believes a "nuclear renaissance" is in the making.

"This is a historic day," Nuclear Energy Institute President Marvin Fertel said in a statement. "Today’s licensing action sounds a clarion call to the world that the United States recognizes the importance of expanding nuclear energy as a key component of a low-carbon energy future that is central to job creation, diversity of electricity supply and energy security."

But cheap natural gas is making nuclear less competitive, and Fukushima undermined public confidence, similar to what happened following the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has taken steps to improve safety at the 104 reactors across the U.S. In particular, better defenses against earthquakes, floods and fires are in the works after Fukushima.

Following the Sept. 11 attacks, the NRC also required nuclear operators to show that their reactors' shield buildings could withstand large airplane collisions.

The industry says improved reactor designs have significantly reduced plant sizes and the number of moving parts, thus reducing the risk of a disaster.

"The design provides enhanced safety margins through use of simplified, inherent, passive, or other innovative safety and security functions," NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko said when the agency approved Southern's reactor design on Dec. 22.

Southern's project in Georgia has received $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees. Essentially, taxpayers are assuring private capital that their investment will be protected if the borrower, in this case a utility, defaults.

http://i.imgur.com/RAb8a.jpg

Approval should encourage other projects in the pipeline. Utilities in Florida and the Carolinas are moving towards seeking approval.

Nuclear power provides about 20 percent of all electricity in the U.S.

Worldwide, more than 60 reactors are being built, including more than two dozen in China alone.

KevinD
02-10-2012, 12:58 AM
The basic problem I have with Nuclear power is waste disposal. Other than that, if it helps get us off foreign oil (it won't) I'm all for it.

Muddy
02-10-2012, 01:34 AM
So the Dows up, unemployments down, bin ladens dead, and now 2 new reactors? I Don't see what all the Obama hate. Dudes gettin' shit done man.. Busting up these preconceived misconceptions people have of him..

Southern Belle
02-10-2012, 01:47 AM
The work in GA at Plant Vogtle has been going on for months.

Godfather
02-10-2012, 03:28 AM
So the Dows up, unemployments down, bin ladens dead, and now 2 new reactors? I Don't see what all the Obama hate. Dudes gettin' shit done man.. Busting up these preconceived misconceptions people have of him..

I meant to ask about that... before the Superbowl he did an interview with Lauer and said that when he started, the economy was losing 750,000 jobs a month, now it's creating 200,000 (or something like that...).

No BS, is that strictly speaking, true?

JoeyB
02-10-2012, 07:35 AM
The basic problem I have with Nuclear power is waste disposal. Other than that, if it helps get us off foreign oil (it won't) I'm all for it.

And it's a pretty massive 'basic' problem.

Here's something to mull over...we went from guys in the desert trying to figure out how to make atoms split to STOPPING the production of new nuclear reactors within a span of just over 30 years. Think about that...not thirty years until we made the first tentative steps towards building a reactor, but thirty until we stopped making them. There were mistakes made and difficulties to overcome, but the can-do American attitude prevailed and produced spectacular results.

If we put that sort of time, money, and effort into alternative green energies, instead of the laughably half assed and pathetic efforts we see now...there would be a healthy surplus of clean, safe, and cheap energy within a decade. But whenever attempts are made, under that limited scope of effort, any shortcoming is used as an excuse to quit and just rely on coal, natural gas, nuclear power and oil. The new 'can't-do attitude' I see poisoning American thought.

Pathetic!

Also, I oppose these new plants, just saying.

Godfather
02-10-2012, 07:40 AM
Joey it's fine. The Russians figured it out decades ago (like the old adage about NASA's 0-G pen and Russia's pencil in space)

Just bury nuclear waste in corroding oil drums in the Arctic Ocean. No biggie.

JoeyB
02-10-2012, 07:45 AM
Joey it's fine. The Russians figured it out decades ago (like the old adage about NASA's 0-G pen and Russia's pencil in space)

Just bury nuclear waste in corroding oil drums in the Arctic Ocean. No biggie.

Well, problem solved!

KevinD
02-10-2012, 07:49 AM
Even though I work in the oil industry, it may come as a surprise that I also happen to agree that we need alternative power sources. That said, we also can't just stop using hydrocarbon fuels, as literally, almost everything you do, eat, or wear is derived from HC's. My biggest concern with Oil is that there is zero need for Foreign (not North American) sources. Stop buying foreign oil, see how fast the craziness in certain areas of the world settles down, use the $$ from that to invest in alternative fuels. It can probably be done in what's left of my lifetime.

JoeyB
02-10-2012, 07:51 AM
Even though I work in the oil industry, it may come as a surprise that I also happen to agree that we need alternative power sources. That said, we also can't just stop using hydrocarbon fuels, as literally, almost everything you do, eat, or wear is derived from HC's. My biggest concern with Oil is that there is zero need for Foreign (not North American) sources. Stop buying foreign oil, see how fast the craziness in certain areas of the world settles down, use the $$ from that to invest in alternative fuels. It can probably be done in what's left of my lifetime.

I think you may have overestimated your potential lifespan.

KevinD
02-10-2012, 07:56 AM
I dunno, I took a lot of drugs when I was young... lol