• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

New nuclear reactors ok'ed in the US for the first time in 30 years

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gaborn

Member
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved licenses to build two new nuclear reactors Thursday, the first authorized in over 30 years.

The reactors are being built in Georgia by a consortium of utilities led by Southern Co. (SO, Fortune 500) They will be sited at the Vogtle nuclear power plant complex, about 170 miles east of Atlanta. The plant already houses two older reactors.

The 5-member NRC voted in favor of the licenses four to one, with Chairman Gregory Jaczko dissenting.

Jaczko said the new licenses don't go far enough in requiring the builders to incorporate lessons learned from the Japanese nuclear disaster last year.

Although new nuclear reactors have come online in the United States 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.

Reactors that have opened in the last decades received their initial licenses before 1978.

The combination of the Three Mile Island incident and the high costs of nuclear power turned many utilities away from the technology.

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 construction on actual reactors couldn't begin until the final license was issued.

The new reactors are a Westinghouse design called the AP 1000. Together they are expected to cost $14 billion and provide 2200 megawatts of power, according to a spokesman for Southern Co. That's enough to power 1 million homes.

The plants are being built with the help of a conditional $8.3 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. The loan guarantee is part of DOE's broader loan program that has been criticized for backing companies like Solyndra, the bankrupt maker of solar panels.

The Southern spokesman said the loan guarantee, combined with other regulatory measures, enable the project to receive cheaper financing that will ultimately save ratepayers $1 billion.
The first reactor is expected to come online in 2016 and the second one in 2017, according to Southern Co.

The AP 1000 is the newest NRC-approved nuclear reactor. This would be the first one built in the United States, although four are already under construction in China, said Scott Shaw, a Westinghouse spokesman.

Critics have said the containment walls of the AP 1000 aren't strong enough to withstand a terrorist attack, but Shaw says they were redesigned after September 11, 2001 and have held up during simulations.

He also said the design's passive cooling system makes it much safer than older designs. The AP 1000 uses gravity and condensation -- not electricity -- to cool the fuel rods.

It was the loss of electric power that led to the meltdown of Japan's Fukushima Daiichi reactors following the tsunami in 2011.

Still, a coalition of nine mostly regional anti-nuclear groups say the current design is not safe. They plan on challenging Thursday's decision in federal court.

In addition to fears of a meltdown at a nuclear power plant, critics also point out that the nation still has no long term plan for the disposal of nuclear waste.

The waste, which is highly radioactive, is currently stored at the plants themselves while the federal government continues its decades-long search for a permanent disposal facility.

There are currently 104 operating nuclear reactors at 64 plants across the country. Half are over 30 years old.

Nuclear power provides the country with about 18% of its electricity. Coal is the nation's largest source for electricity, providing 43% of our energy, while natural gas makes up another 25%, according to the Energy Information Agency.

Renewables make up the remaining 14%, with hydroelectric dams accounting for more than half of that. Wind accounts for about 3% and biomass (think paper mills or agricultural plants) another 2%. Solar and geothermal make up under 1% of American electricity production, according to EIA.


In addition to the Vogtle plant, 16 other plants across the country have applications with the the NRC to build 25 more reactors.

Most of those reactors would be built at existing nuclear power plants but there are two applications submitted for brand new nuclear plants -- one in Levy County, Fla., and another outside Gaffney, S.C.

Environmentalists are split when it comes to nuclear power. Many are weary of it, citing the safety, cost and waste disposal concerns. Others favor it on the grounds that it can provide massive amounts of power that's basically greenhouse gas-free.

"Moving away from fossil fuels in order to address climate change is the biggest challenge facing our power sector, and safe nuclear power will be an important part of that solution,"

Richard Caperton, director of clean energy investment at the left-leaning Center for American Progress said in a statement.

But, underscoring the dichotomy, he added: "If the new reactors are not brought online in a timely and cost-effective manner, as often happens with nuclear plants, those consumers could see their electric bills skyrocket."

Story Here

EXCELLENT decision, and long overdue.
 
I hope they look beyond PWRs in the US. In the UK the government are going to get decades old technology while ignoring Thorium breeder reactors.
 
Here's hoping they continue this expansion. And I also hope they further expand the research on other renewable sources of energy.
 
Glory, hallelujah.

The under-utilization of nuclear in the US is a perpetual source of frustration to me.

The plants are being built with the help of a conditional $8.3 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. The loan guarantee is part of DOE's broader loan program that has been criticized for backing companies like Solyndra, the bankrupt maker of solar panels.
How do you not bold that?
 
It really is the best form of energy we have, and this is a great decision. Now, it's just keeping everyone safe from meltdowns and threats that we gotta work on.
 
Good stuff!

I remember thinking that this was just going to get stonewalled waayyy into the future. Glad it's sooner than later!
 
If it were up to me we'd have nuke plants out the wazoo and all drive electric cars.

And I'm a liberal.

Seal the waste up deep inside caverns carved into solid rock mountains.
 
Jane Fonda is gonna go Rambo over this.

Barbarella+%25281968%2529+1.jpg


And I for one can hardly wait. >:^)
 
I'm iffy on this, but I don't want to get into this all now. Maybe the new designs fix shit, but I'm extremely iffy on this. Its 110% personal too.
 
I'm iffy on this, but I don't want to get into this all now. Maybe the new designs fix shit, but I'm extremely iffy on this. Its 110% personal too.

The new designs are leagues ahead of the current plants in terms of safety.


Nice. About time. Sucks it'll probably take a decade or more for them to become operational, though.

Shouldn't take that long. I'd say more like 7. IIRC, these sites are already dug up and ready to start pouring concrete.

I hope they look beyond PWRs in the US. In the UK the government are going to get decades old technology while ignoring Thorium breeder reactors.

New reactors in the UK are not, in any way, based on decades old tech.
 
I'm iffy on this, but I don't want to get into this all now. Maybe the new designs fix shit, but I'm extremely iffy on this. Its 110% personal too.
He also said the design's passive cooling system makes it much safer than older designs. The AP 1000 uses gravity and condensation -- not electricity -- to cool the fuel rods.

It was the loss of electric power that led to the meltdown of Japan's Fukushima Daiichi reactors following the tsunami in 2011.

More nuclear waste :/
I prefer nuclear waste to higher asthma rates and all the other unpleasantries borne out of coal. There is no way to generate power without undesirable by-products. Pick your poison.
 
I wish we'd just pour money on fusion technology so that all this energy related bullshit just kinda goes away faster.

Nuclear waste and such stuff is no joke.
 
The new designs are leagues ahead of the current plants in terms of safety.

It's not that. It's the unknown health side effects.

Look I'll post more later about this. I live in the city where this is being built, and I have friends and neighbors that work about both the Government run and the privately run nuke facilities. I've personally visited both.

I know some extremely smart people working on this shit, and it's just not that easy. I'll post more later.
 
I wish we'd just pour money on fusion technology so that all this energy related bullshit just kinda goes away faster.

Nuclear waste and such stuff is no joke.

There's a certain point where a technology is adequately funded and all you can do is hope someone figures it out. With multiple new reactors, fusion is pretty much at that point.
 
Great news. Just hope they make sure they're prepared for the worst case scenario.

Also, please reopen the SMUD plant near Sacramento.
 
Hopefully just the start of it. The more nuclear reactors we use to power our grids, the better.

It's still not nearly ideal. Democratized sustainable energy and fusion reactors are where things are going, and those are much preferable to fission environmentally, from my understanding.
 
It's still not nearly ideal. Democratized sustainable energy and fusion reactors are where things are going, and those are much preferable to fission environmentally, from my understanding.

A fusion reactor is definitely more ideal, however there's no guarantee something like that is going to happen any time soon. In the meanwhile, we can utilize modern nuclear designs until a feasible fusion reactor is developed.

This is good news, hopefully everything works out smoothly.
 
It's not that. It's the unknown health side effects.

Look I'll post more later about this. I live in the city where this is being built, and I have friends and neighbors that work about both the Government run and the privately run nuke facilities. I've personally visited both.

I know some extremely smart people working on this shit, and it's just not that easy. I'll post more later.

I work on this shit. Already have 2 reactors in my town, and I'd welcome a plant in my neighborhood. Guess I'll have to wait for your explanation.a
 
The day we figure out fusion is the day all eyes turn back towards the moon. However, due to NASA cuts, there will be a Chinese flag there by then, maybe even a base, and everyone will be importing Chinese Helium-3.
 
While I'm glad to see nuclear making a little headway in the US, I hope the new designs use less water than the current designs. TVA's nuclear plants are having a big problem with the amount of heat their discharged water is putting into the environment and it's causing their reactors not to operate at full capacity. Also, the reliance on water is stressing an already diminishing water supply for the southeast as a whole.
 
The day we figure out fusion is the day all eyes turn back towards the moon. However, due to NASA cuts, there will be a Chinese flag there by then, maybe even a base, and everyone will be importing Chinese Helium-3.

Well, how much does it cost to isolate hydrogen from, like, water or something? Is that a worse option?
 
Well, how much does it cost to isolate hydrogen from, like, water or something? Is that a worse option?

I forget the details, but Helium-3 is believed to be a vastly superior nuclear fusion fuel.

edit* did some reading, Helium-3 fusion poses a lower radiation hazard and produces more energy.
 
We can shoot it into space where it will keep going and never come back.

Not before we have something that makes lifting stuff to orbit cheap. Currently it costs some $30K per kilo to orbit IIRC.

And then there are breeder reactors that can use some of the nuclear waste...
 
While I'm glad to see nuclear making a little headway in the US, I hope the new designs use less water than the current designs. TVA's nuclear plants are having a big problem with the amount of heat their discharged water is putting into the environment and it's causing their reactors not to operate at full capacity. Also, the reliance on water is stressing an already diminishing water supply for the southeast as a whole.

Not sure what you mean by this, Nukes don't really 'use' water. Rather, they utilize it.
The diminished capacity of the TVA plants is actually due to environmental regulations. But they're working on a fix.
 
OH NO NUCLEAR WASTE!

What's wrong with nuclear waste?

IT'S RADIOACTIVE!!

Then when it's not radiactive enough to be viable in the big reactor, use it in a smaller reactor.

BUT BUT OH NO NUCLEAR WASTE!
 
I cant be angry at this at all. This is fantastic news. I just wish the radicals who think we'll usher in a Chernobyl or Japan incident would wise up to how much better of a move this is so we can actually fund more. I dont mind my tax money going to this.
 
Not sure what you mean by this, Nukes don't really 'use' water. Rather, they utilize it.
The diminished capacity of the TVA plants is actually due to environmental regulations. But they're working on a fix.

Yes. Environmental regulations which are in place to make sure the river's ecology isn't damaged beyond repair. You can't heat up a river by 5-10 degrees with a plant's discharge and not expect there to be consequences.

So once again, my question is will these new reactors use (aka "utilize") less water than their predecessors? If not, I see problems with continued power output that will only get worse as the predicted water shortage in many parts of the country (and we're already seeing happen) takes hold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom