Another New Nuclear Reactor Energizes U.S. Clean Energy Hopes

Oil Price ^ | 08/08/2023 | Felicity Bradstock

[SeekAndFind]

The U.S. brings a new Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor online in Georgia, the first in 7 years, signaling a potential nuclear renaissance.

• Historical fears and incidents hindered nuclear development, but changing perceptions and energy needs have positioned nuclear as a clean energy solution.

• While challenges like high costs and lengthy development times persist, political support, funding, and improving public opinion could drive a resurgence in U.S. nuclear energy.

Following the energy shortages of 2022, the U.S. has been racing to reinvigorate its nuclear energy sector. Long neglected, nuclear power appears to be making a comeback in the U.S., having gained funding and political support from the Biden administration, and being seen as an obvious option to help accelerate a green transition. In recent years, the U.S. has been trying to simply keep its existing nuclear reactors ticking over but, for the first time in 7 years, a new reactor is up and running, spurring greater optimism for the future of U.S. nuclear energy.

In July, Georgia Power brought a new Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor online, sending power to the U.S. grid. The Unit 3 reactor at Plant Vogtle in Georgia began operations last month following successful preliminary testing in March. The reactor generates around 1,110 MW of energy, enough to power roughly 500,000 homes and businesses. This is the first new reactor to come into operation since 2016 when the Watts Bar Unit 2 came online in Tennessee under the Tennessee Valley Authority.

[Red6]

All power generation produces “pollution.”

But, nuclear power is one of the cleanest, i.e. no H2SO4, HNO3, no coal distillates, CO2, sludge, hydrocarbons... No large scale mining, no large scale logistics of coal, pipelines for gas, a small footprint (high power density) deriving power from highly efficient turbines, no heavy metals let lose, no noise pollution, minimal impact on the eco system even in the immediate area around the plant.

Nuclear power is the way to go.

In fact, nuclear power basically eliminates any argument folks like I have against EVs and allows for the transition to electric powered systems WITHOUT fossil fuels being burned in the background anyhow.

You only have 2 options:

1. Fossil fuels: gas, coal, wood, fuel oil, diesel...

2. Nuclear.

Do not mention solar, wind or the other bullshit. These are pipedreams, fake solutions anyone with a clue knows do not work. Every industrialized nation on this planet, with a few exceptions like Norway that are blessed with EXTREMELY favorable conditions for hydroelectric power, get their power either from fossil fuels or nuclear. Without going into all the details which I can provide you if interested, all these green alternatives are simply put, fake feel good solutions which politicians use as photo ops while nationally they either push ahead with fossil fuels or nuclear power- period.

France-nuclear
Germany-fossil
Japan-nuclear
USA- fossil/nuclear
Russia- fossil/nuclear

Even your solar panels and wind turbines pollute. But they pollute while not producing power at a cost point that is reasonable for industry and they are unreliable. Even solar panels are energy intense to produce, usually involve heavy meals in their manufacture... Wind turbines kill birds, have massive composite blades no one knows what do do with after they’re done, can be loud, require access roads, have a huge footprint (low power density), require big holes be dug, the use of power lines strung across the country side...

https://www.chernobyl-tour.com/english/ Not sure about how this war impacts things, but all this nuclear disaster crap is over hyped media junk, and the fact that people die in coal mines, from cancer that may be caused by coal hydrocarbons, asthma is worsened from fossil fuel pollution just isn’t a big deal. None of that seems to matter because it’s “normal” for you. If 46,000 American die in traffic accidents per year, little gets said, if a plane crashes and 2 people die it’s in the news. Nuclear power is the same. People are ignorant and have been taught to fear it, they do not understand it, but it’s actually COMPARATIVELY clean, safe, cheap, reliable, energy dense, nationally derived without any dependencies. Nuclear could literally produce power for thousands of years, the uranium used is a naturally occuring isotope, it’s just concentrated...

I grew up around a nuke plant and I doubt that you have. I also have a degree as an E.E. But I never had a financial interest in nuclear power. I really hope you’re just some anomaly and not representative of what public education produces today.

[hopespringseternal]

So far there appears to be one person who died from radiation as a result of Fukushima.

For Chernobyl the initial death toll was 31, with about 60 dying later of radiation induced cancer.

You seem to be unaware that you are continuously being zapped by cosmic rays, and the radiation exposure from flying a passenger jet far exceeds the residual radiation exposure anyone has from either accident.

Compare that to Bhopal where nearly 4000 died.

How about the Banqiao dam failure that killed 100,000? Clean hydro power!

Compared to that, nuclear accidents are more on the Great Molasses Flood scale of deaths. (21 dead)

Your fear is irrational.

[absalom01]

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Another New Nuclear Reactor Energizes U.S. Clean Energy Hopes, Ransomnote wrote:

I always shake my head in wonderment when I see nuke power referred to as ‘clean energy’.

 

Compared to what?

Coal?

Solar PV's from China?

Windmills?

Natural gas?

Dried dung cooking fires?

Or just shivering in the dark?

[ransomnote]

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Another New Nuclear Reactor Energizes U.S. Clean Energy Hopes, hopespringseternal wrote:

So far there appears to be one person who died from radiation as a result of Fukushima.

Depends on who counts the deaths from radiation, doesn't it?

For Chernobyl the initial death toll was 31, with about 60 dying later of radiation induced cancer.

Depends on who counts the deaths from radiation, doesn't it?

You seem to be unaware that you are continuously being zapped by cosmic rays, and the radiation exposure from flying a passenger jet far exceeds the residual radiation exposure anyone has from either accident.

You seem to be astoundingly ignorant of the difference between cosmic rays during a 2 hr passenger jet flight and hundreds of thousands of years of populations consuming radioactive waste in the air/food/water. Astoundingly ignorant.

Compare that to Bhopal where nearly 4000 died.

Drop in the bucket compared with the true and continuing toll of Fukushima and or Chernobyl. Note that the horrific chemical damage cleared quickly compared with the ability of the radioactive waste to kill and/or sicken for 100s of thousands of years.

How about the Banqiao dam failure that killed 100,000? Clean hydro power!

Drop in the bucket compared with Fukushima and or Chernobyl. I wonder if at least the dam engineers had to accept responsibility, or do they skate free of the human suffering? And note, floods don't have the half life of Uranium.

Compared to that, nuclear accidents are more on the Great Molasses Flood scale of deaths. (21 dead)

Depends on who counts the deaths from radiation, doesn't it?

Your fear is irrational.

Your minimization of generational suffering and death is unconscionable.

[Revel]

“I would rather see nuclear energy, so the US could sever ties with foreign energy suppliers.”

Now that is pretty funny right there. Do you even know that only 5% of the nuclear fuel comes from the US. And after what Biden just did it might be less than that.

[ransomnote]

I think too little of your post and your reasoning to respond to it.

[Revel]

You go stand next to a pile of spent fuel. I’ll go stand next to pile of coal ash. Lets see who makes out better.

[Reynoldo]

Are there any advances in long-term storage for the waste?

Are there some ways to ‘use up’ the nastiness of spent fuel?

[Red6]

In fact, I live near a plant today, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant

The point being that you could do tours of Chernobyl pre-war, and in fact it was a friggin “nature preserve.”

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife

Nuclear power does have it’s concerns which are primarily the risks associated with a catastrophic event or the waste, but when you weigh that off with the price we’re paying with fossil fuels, it’s a far better solution.

It only comes down to two options, fossil fuels, or nuclear power. Keep that in mind. And if climate change is a concern, then nuclear power is far better (no CO2). If acid rain is a concern, nuclear power is better (no H2SO4). If carcinogenic hydrocarbons are a concern, it’s far better. If the volume of waste material is a concern, nuclear power is better. If it’s how much mining is needed, how much in logistics is required, how much land area is required, nuclear wins every time. If you want power that is 100% US/Canadian, nuclear can do that. If you want cheap power, in high volume, that is reliable, even if it’s the hottest or coldest ever, windiest or not blowing at all, full sun or eclipse of the sun, nuclear can give you power.

Since you mention cancer: Do you know where those isotopes used in treating cancer and for medical imaging come from? https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/radioisotopes-research/radioisotopes-in-medicine.aspx

Do you realize you could stand on top of a cooling tower and nothing would happen to you... It’s just steam: https://www.nucleartourist.com/images/Kkn1.gif

[Red6]

The spent fuel is very little in volume and it’s recyclable.

Realize, you are walking on top of the exact same uranium that is used in a reactor. It is merely concentrated, i.e. a particular isotope. Uranium is found in the ground and even top soil: https://remon.jrc.ec.europa.eu/About/Atlas-of-Natural-Radiation/Digital-Atlas/Uranium-in-soil/Uranium-concentration-in-soil- People just don’t know that, so they’re not concerned. If you really want to get technical, you could fix the waste issue by diluting it and spreading it out over the place, but since that’s not a realistic option, we have storage sites.

Sometimes, it’s the fear mongering and ignorance that actually CAUSES the risks! Ask yourself this, are spent fuel rods better stored in an abandoned salt mine, far under ground, under the water table, or in tanks next to the plant because all these environmentalists and the politicians that pander to them prevent the use of a billion dollar plus existing storage site that is not exposed to the weather and in a geologically stable place?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository This is stupid. Already paid for and built, Better than storing the stuff at the plant.

Let me ask you this, do you realize some of the ashes from burning coal are also radioactive? https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-power-plants#:~:text=The%20majority%20of%20coal%20combustion,the%20intense%20heat%20of%20combustion

Do you realize you get all sorts of other pollution by burning coal: https://www.gem.wiki/Coal_waste Coal produces about 350,000 times the volume of waste products for the same amount of energy produced?

I know you probably live in some green energy fantasy world, but reality has you making a decision between fossil fuels and nuclear, and of those two, nuclear is by far the better option.

[Red6]

That you think little is apparent.

[ransomnote]

The (stupid) talking points just flow from you.

“Do you know where those isotopes used in treating cancer and for medical imaging come from?”

They don’t feed patients uranium and plutonium. There’s NO comparison. Patients decide whether to receive radioactive therapy for cancer, and are given measured doses if they agree. We have never given our consent for the nuke industry to blow radioactive waste into the air/water and ultimately the food chain for hundreds of thousands of years.

“Do you realize you could stand on top of a cooling tower and nothing would happen to you...”

I know it’s just steam but so few people WANT to stand on top of a cooling tower and yet so many want to drink water and breathe air. There is no comparison between steam and radioactive wastes released into our food/water/air. NONE.

[ransomnote]

The ‘haven for wildlife’ story for Chernobyl is too sick to entertain! Humans couldn’t live in the area, hunters couldn’t hunt in the area, so wildlife lived their undisturbed other than genetic mutations and uncounted numbers of dead or diseased specimens. I guess the next nuclear plant meltdown will be described as a ‘fantastic new wildlife preserve!”

[meyer]

Vogtle Unit 3 is fully commercial, having passed numerous functional and operational tests. Unit 4 at the same plant is a few months away from the same status.

Expensive, but much more reliable than solar and wind power.

[hopespringseternal]

You seem to be astoundingly ignorant of the difference between cosmic rays during a 2 hr passenger jet flight and hundreds of thousands of years of populations consuming radioactive waste in the air/food/water. Astoundingly ignorant.

You are funny. Hundreds of thousands of years? Something that takes that long to decay can only be considered radioactive in an academic sense. Your flight is far worse. When it comes to radiation, if it takes a long time to decay it isn't emitting much and isn't dangerous. If it decays quickly it is dangerous, but only for a short time.

Your hyperventilating about Fukushima and Chernobyl is especially pathetic considering you can't even provide statistics, much less the graves of all those who supposedly died. They exist only in your mind.

How are Hiroshima and Nagasaki doing these days?

[ransomnote]

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Another New Nuclear Reactor Energizes U.S. Clean Energy Hopes, hopespringseternal wrote:

You seem to be astoundingly ignorant of the difference between cosmic rays during a 2 hr passenger jet flight and hundreds of thousands of years of populations consuming radioactive waste in the air/food/water. Astoundingly ignorant.

You are funny. Hundreds of thousands of years? Something that takes that long to decay can only be considered radioactive in an academic sense. Your flight is far worse. When it comes to radiation, if it takes a long time to decay it isn't emitting much and isn't dangerous. If it decays quickly it is dangerous, but only for a short time.

Your hyperventilating about Fukushima and Chernobyl is especially pathetic considering you can't even provide statistics, much less the graves of all those who supposedly died. They exist only in your mind.

How are Hiroshima and Nagasaki doing these days?

You continue with your astounding ignorance.

You are comparing isotopes of nuclear fuel to cosmic rays on a 2 hr flight and you can't understand why that's pathetic? You're hoping people don't understand half-life?

By your reasoning, people should be able to purchase Uranium for use in high school science fairs. The only thing left for you to do is to compare radioactive fuels to bananas.

Russia made it illegal for doctors to report deaths by radiation poisonings, but the public still talked about it.

Japan made it illegal for doctors to report deaths by radiation poisonings, but the public still talks about it.

The town surrounding the smoldering Chernobyl plant held an outdoor fair in the fallout. The messaging from officials soon changed from, "Everything is fine..." to "Let's put you on a bus and house you out of town for a brief stay - you don't need ANY luggage. Get on the buses STAT!" to "You can't go home again."

You're just sure deaths and illness from heavy irradiation is mythical. So if I get a dental x-ray I have to sign consent understanding the risk of harm following exposure to x-rays and the benefits of such x-rays in treating illness. But you're still here arguing that

Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Tracking of cancer was intentionally defeated when the database listing proximity to the explosions and the names of the persons reported were erased. But the nuke industry doesn't waste time thinking about people suffering and dying. It spends it's time denying it ever happened.

[Red6]

Granite counter tops and cat litter is radioactive.

Radiation is all around you, and if it’s that big of a concern, you better not go out into the sun or to a beach.

Radiation isn’t well understood, and yes you are right that you want to minimize exposure, especially from beta emissions, but in the real world it’s a matter of weighing the options, not eliminating it from our lives since that cannot be done. Many building materials are radioactive: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/building.html#:~:text=What%20building%20materials%20contain%20radioactive,emit%20low%20levels%20of%20radiation.

Uranium used in a reactor is not man made or some synthetic product. It’s in the ground that you walk on every day. They simply concentrate it.

No, the area around Chernobyl isn’t dangerous and really is a wild life refuge, no you don’t have massive mutations, no there isn’t some danger living by a reactor, and there are areas in Colorado that naturally have higher radiation levels than ground zero at Trinity test site today, where they detonated the first atomic bombs and you can go visit: https://www.nps.gov/thingstodo/alamogordo-visit-the-trinity-site.htm

“Stupid talking points” are facts you cannot argue against, but have strong feelings about. So as usual, you use fallacies and rhetoric in an ignorant attempt to make a point.

Yes, they do feed patients radioactive isotopes, they inject them into their blood (contrast), put pellets into their prostate (seeding)... You might have smoke detectors in your home that use an isotope derived from nuclear power, and you likely don’t know it: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/eason1/

There is no “radioactive waste released into our food, water and air.” A reactor is a closed loop. The uranium is not burned and released as with a chemical process which is the case with (((ALL))) fossil fuels. The cooling water is recirculated and you theoretically could go swimming in it (outside the reactor). The water which goes in and out of the reactor does not come in contact with the water used inside, the heat is transferred in the cooling process. The turbines run on the steam... point being is that unlike burning a fuel, nothing is released and it’s far cleaner.

Fukushima, an older reactor design and not built in the best location, ironically is an example of how reactors are safe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster How bad was it really? All the over exaggerated horror stories in the news are garbage. There is no rise in cancer, miscarriages or birth defects and you have folks watching, looking at it with a microscope. How many people really died? The few that did were injuries from the tsunami itself...

I live not to far from a reactor: Comanche Peak. Just about everything else concerns me more regards my health and safety, than that reactor. But because of all the idiots and fear mongering, getting a tour of that place isn’t even a remote possibility anymore :(

Of the two alternatives, nuclear power poses LESS of a health risk than building more gas and coal fired plants, period.

[ransomnote]

Granite counter tops and cat litter is radioactive.

Radiation is all around you, and if it’s that big of a concern, you better not go out into the sun or to a beach.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once again you go with the irrelevant comparisons. And then from there you go down hill with the talking points.

I know Uranium is not man made! I walk on dilute uranium embedded under ground - the greater the distance, the less the dose. Walking over a particle is a brief exposure. Consuming or inhaling particles result in higher, potentially lifetime continuous exposure. The greater the dilution, the less the dose. You simply bank on people having no idea what you are talking about.

I say ‘stupid talking points’ because I already dug up the research and debated people like you and you people are STILL OUT THERE with the same lame comparisons and excuses.

The nuclear power industry accepts zero oversight and zero responsibility, and then talks down to the public in a lordly way. Sickening.

Yes - there are areas that naturally have higher radiation levels - that does not give the nuke industry the excuse to dig it up, refine it to concentrations and then blow it up into the atmosphere like it ‘ain’t no thang’. A person with a conscience would know this - I get tired of trying to explain it to people who don’t care. You don’t care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no “radioactive waste released into our food, water and air.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Uh, yes there is. When Fukushima blew fuel rods into the air and water, when the ground water started testing positive for radioactive waste, when all of that can’t be cleaned up - it’s just time to open a new reactor and ridicule anyone bringing up the ones that blew up.

Chernobyl has much higher radiation than ‘normal’ and so the staff work 3 weeks on and 3 weeks off (outside the zone) to slow the accumulation of dosage.
Here’s an excerpt and link:

Risk

Generally the levels of radiation in Pripyat and the surrounding area, although far higher than the norm, are safe for the time you will be exposed to them (just don’t go licking stuff).

Those who work within the zone typically work 3 weeks on, 3 weeks off. The “off” period must be spent outside of the zone.

Radiation levels can change daily, dependent upon a number of factors including wind speeds. Just because you measured a level yesterday doesn’t mean it’ll be the same today as pockets of radiation move around. Large variations in levels can also occur within only a few metres of each other.

Weather cleansed tarmac, or hard standing, is preferable to standing on vegetation. Pay specific attention to moss, wherever it may grow, as it is great at absorbing radiation and therefore likely to emit far higher levels than the surface it is growing on. This sounds simple in theory but I found it easy to forget when confronted with the sights of Pripyat.

It depends on the nature of your visit but for longer, less chaperoned, trips it may be worth borrowing or buying a Geiger counter. I didn’t have one but many of those I went with did. All gave slightly different readings but functioned as a good guide. Clearly it’s pointless having one if you don’t know what the readings actually mean, accurate or not, partly why I didn’t take one on my first visit.

Dust is a potentially nasty. Ingesting radioactive particles is not something you want to make a habit of. I choose not to wear a mask. The majority of people I saw also didn’t but obviously make your own decision, it’s your health.

https://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~End of Excerpt

The more exposure, the higher the accumulated dose, the greater the risk.

Fires in overgrown areas sends the isotopes into the air.

I know Uranium is not combusted. I’ve experimented with radioactive sources.

Fukushima lost containment of nuclear fuel (ha- as in they blew it up and out) underground too, so the water table is flushing radioactive waste into the ocean, where the fish that people eat live. Food web, you know. But you do know - you’re just here to blow smoke and make it seem like NOTHING. People found portions of fuel rods blown ‘too far’ from the reactor to be the result of a conventional explosion. People watched the cameras around Fukushima and talked about fissures and cracks ejecting steam - so the fuel was still producing heat. Don’t tell me it was overblown when Japan made it illegal to report sickness or to even talk about it online.

The statement that got us into this debate was ‘clean energy’ and that’s my objection. It’s not ‘clean’.

[Red6]

Your responses such as asking about the waste indicate something: You hold nuclear power to an impossible perfection standard.

In this world/life, there is no perfection or complete happiness. You only have tradeoffs where you hope in the net sum of all factors to come out ahead.

Example: The so called zero emission vehicle is a total lie and pandering to ignorance. This idea perpetuated that an electric car is zero emissions is an insult to any reasonable thinking mind. You still need to generate that power, and instead of the pollution coming out of an exhaust pipe, it simply is blown out of a smokestack miles away. But in addition, you now have batteries to worry about. Is it really cleaner? Very questionable.

But now imagine this scenario regards the EV - we produce the majority of our power from a nuclear source (example France ~70%). Now a sceptic like me is sunk, because at that point the electric vehicle really is cleaner. It’ll still need power of course, but the generation of that power is far more efficient, steam turbine with 90% thermal efficiency vs. Otto/Diesel with ~30%. AND that power was generated without burning anything, no CO2, soot, acid rain, hydrocarbons, minimal mining, minimal waste. At that point, the EV sceptic like myself has to bow out. The reason why this is huge, is because transportation is where much of your pollution which poses a health risk is generated.

Nuclear power isn’t perfect. It requires some mining, but has far less impact than coal or gas. It has some waste, but far less than coal or gas. It has some associated risks, but far less than coal or gas.

Holding nuclear power to an impossible perfection standard, while simply accepting the costs associated with coal and gas, is not a logical argument. People will die in coal mines, from soot, asthma, cancer caused by hydrocarbons as well... Assuming you believe the climate change narrative, gas and coal produce CO2, and despite all the measures to clean up coal, you still get some acid as well.

If you want to keep this conversation real, you need to accept the fact that you’re really just comparing two imperfect alternatives, and the debate is over which one has a greater net advantage for us. Once you frame the conversation like that, if you keep things factual, the answer is damn near apparent.

[Red6]

We live in a world where our ability to measure things exceeds the practical limits of their relevancy.

For example, we can still see the background radiation of the big bang, you can still see radiation from the above surface atomic tests we conducted... But other than knowing a cool fact or in the sciences themselves, does it matter in your day to day life?

That’s why granite counter tops and cat litter do matter. You’re exposed to alpha and beta radiation from natural sources or in medical applications that FAR exceed anything you get from Chernobyl, Fukushima or all the nations of this world and their above surface nuclear tests combined. You get more radiation when going skiing in Colorado than if you went to ground zero at Trinity. You get more radiation from your dentist, going to a beach... You are probably not afraid of going into an underground basement of a building, to stay in a concrete building...

You define any and all exposure as to much, and since we can measure radiation and even often determine their source to a miniscule and irrelevant level, you’re basically making a big deal out of NOTHING.

If this is a conversation about health and safety, if I were you, I would worry more about that particle board furniture and its offgas, the carpet in your home, or better yet the >50% chance of you being obese. Cat litter and granite matter because you’re worrying about threats that are basically irrelevant, while ignoring things which do matter.