Posted on 02/08/2012 6:35:56 PM PST by matt04
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to approve licenses to build two new nuclear reactors Thursday, the first approvals in over 30 years.
The reactors are being built in Georgia by a consortium of utilities led by Southern Co. They will be sited at the Vogtle nuclear power plant complex, about 170 miles east of Atlanta. The plant already houses two older reactors.
Spokespeople for Southern Co. and the NRC were quiet on the matter Wednesday ahead of the vote set for Thursday at 12 PM ET. If approved, NRC staff would likely issue a construction and operating license within the next few days.
Although new nuclear reactors have been built in this country within the last couple of decades -- the last one started operation in 1996 -- the NRC hasn't issued a license to build a new reactor since 1978, a year before the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania. The reactors that have opened in the last decades were approved before 1978.
The combination of the Three Mile Island incident and the high costs of nuclear power turned many utilities away from the technology.
There are currently 104 operating nuclear reactors at 64 plants across the country that provide the nation with roughly 20% of its power. Half are over 30 years old.
The utilities building the new Vogtle reactors submitted their application seven years ago. Prep-work at the site has been under way for some time, but the actual reactors can't be built until NRC issues the final license.
...
Still, a coalition of nine mostly regional environmental groups say the current design is not safe. They are asking the NRC to delay its decision Thursday until they can file a challenge in federal court.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
Actually, I thought that TVA had a permit made up last year for a new nuke plant over in the Huntsville area of Alabama. They held a meeting over near Scottsboro, where they wanted to place the plant. Based on local coverage...the people who threw up a fuss during the meeting were asked for their local address, and none of them could cite an address within the state. The local press stayed mostly neutral, and just reported facts...which surprised me to some degree.
Great news!
“High cost...” Gee, does anyone think that the fact that the government hasn’t issued any licenses for decades might have something to do with that?
Its about time!
This a story I will believe when the plants are up and pumping megawatts
This a story I will believe when the plants are up and pumping megawatts
Name one Nuclear Reactor Design that is inherently safe when the power goes out in Facility? Meaning power goes out reactor just shuts down and doesn’t explode.
A wind farm that would produce an equivalent amount of energy on an annual basis would cost more.
I can’t wait to see what improvements have come about over the last thirty years.
/johnny
Pebble bed reactor using helium as the working fluid.
It just goes to sleep.
It is also known as a “self-damping reactor.”
Unfortunately the democomies are preventing safe clean, nukes. Read up on breeder reactors, fast breeder reactors and gates’s traveling wave reactor.
90% of nuke energy remains in a depleted nuke rod.(300 years of global energy needs already exist in waste) All breeder reactors render that waste safe, some make plutonium, which is critical for manned and unmanned space flight. The democomies since the peanut farmer have said no weapons grade material for the usa, and deal with the waste in the worst way imaginable. (i guess we should shoot it in to the sun, but we’re not allowed to launch it because of the crash risk.)
Shoot the democommies, let the market fix it.
just one little week after the judge’s decision of Obambies eligibility case...Hmmmmmmmmmm
Coal, natural gas, hydro-electric dams, windmills, all have risks.
The greatest risk, though, is to do nothing which means you either freeze to death or starve to death.
The sad thing is, spent fuel from reactors, either LWRs or breeders or whatever, is totally unsuitable as a source of plutonium for nuclear weapons. The reason? Too much 240Pu. The 240Pu essentially "poisons" the material because of its high spontaneous fission rate. That produces neutrons when you don't want them, and causes the weapon to pre-detonate. A special plutonium breeding cycle is needed to minimize the 240Pu while still getting enough 239Pu. It requires the material to be removed at a precise time after the start of irradiation. Obviously, in a reactor, this specialized breeding cycle is not used. You just burn the fuel down as much as possible without regard to optimizing the 239Pu/240Pu ratio.
Carter didn't understand this. Neither do almost all anti-nuclear people who oppose nuclear energy on this basis. When I explain it to most people, it's like an epiphany. Of course, the dogmatic anti-nukes usually mumble some other absurd objection, but when you knock their legs out from under them with scientific arguments, you can see they are really deflated.
Naval Nuclear Reactors
This is a good thing but you need a place to store the waste rather keeping it on site.
Actually, nuclear waste can be re-used, if it weren’t for Jimmuh Cartah’s idiot regulation forcing people to bury it all. See some of the previous posts.
Notably, the stuff with the longest half-life can be re-used, instead of trying to find a waste dump, which no one wants in their back yard.
It’s still another case of environmentalists doing far more damage to the environment than anyone else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.