Nuclear Plants Approved

[Riverwind (imported)]

First Next-Gen US Reactor Designed to Avoid Fukushima Repeat

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Z5.Jel ... ogo_73.jpg (http://www.livescience.com/)By Jeremy Hsu | LiveScience.com – 59 mins ago

Southern Company Chairman, President and C.E.O. Thomas Fanning announces that the …

The United States has approved construction of new nuclear reactors for the first time in three decades. The two new reactors approved today (Feb. 9) for Georgia would represent the first U.S. versions of next-generation reactor designs that have begun appearing in China.

These "third-generation" reactors are said to be safer, with longer-lasting batteries and passive cooling systems powered by gravity so that they can survive longer during emergencies without outside power.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/758 ... ctors.html) approved construction of the two reactors at an existing nuclear power plant in Vogtle, Ga., in a 4-1 vote.

"The last plant that got to this stage of the [approval] process did so in 1978," said Harold McFarlane, manager of the nuclear science and technology directorate at Idaho National Laboratory. "We think it's a very significant step going forward. It is the first of the new generation."

The U.S. froze construction of nuclear power plants after the partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island (http://www.innovationnewsdaily.com/154- ... w-bad.html), Pa., in 1979. Consequently, the 104 nuclear plants still operating in the country have designs dating to the 1960s and 1970s. Meanwhile, the first of the third-generation plants were designed in the 1990s and were updated throughout the new millennium.

Making a safer reactor

Following the devastating earthquake and tsunami that led to the meltdown at Japan's Fukushima Plant (http://www.innovationnewsdaily.com/194- ... shima.html) last March, Germany, Switzerland and Spain halted construction of any new nuclear power plants. However, energy-hungry China has pressed ahead with adding new, third-generation nuclear reactors.

The newly approved AP1000 reactors for the Vogtle plant — to be made by Westinghouse — have safety features that would give people "days instead of hours" to restore electric power in a Fukushima scenario, McFarlane told InnovationNewsDaily. The Fukushima reactors suffered a meltdown after the lack of electricity knocked out their cooling systems.

In the new models, which Westinghouse already has built for China, "the water needed to cool the reactors is stored inside the containment building rather than outside of containment," explained Robert Buell, a risk analyst at Idaho National Laboratory. "You use physics and natural circulation along the containment walls to cool the reactors instead of relying on mechanical systems."

Ghosts of Fukushima

The Fukushima disaster did not go unmentioned during the Nuclear Regulatory Commission vote. According to the news service Reuters (http://news.yahoo.com/nrc-approves-firs ... 58673.html), NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko cast the lone vote against the new reactors, arguing that the commission should delay approval until it requires all nuclear plant operators to include "Fukushima enhancements" — safety and operational lessons learned from the meltdown.

Mitchell Singer, a spokesman for the trade group the Nuclear Energy Institute, contended that delaying approval for that reason would be pointless. All reactors, old or new, would have to abide by such regulations anyway once the NRC decided to put the safety standards into effect, Singer argued.

Most proposed nuclear reactors under consideration in the U.S. would be built at current plants. The NRC is reviewing 12 combined license applications for reactors at 20 nuclear power plants; Singer said he expects five new reactors to have powered up by the end of the decade.

Boosting energy production

Nuclear plants in the U.S. have boosted production by 40 percent over the past two decades to make up for the lack of new construction amid the growing demand for electricity. Almost all the 104 reactors are undergoing relicensing and power upgrades to operate for 20 more years, McFarlane said. That's likely to keep nuclear power supplying about a fifth of all US energy needs (http://www.innovationnewsdaily.com/653- ... needs.html) in the foreseeable future, he said.

Adding a nuclear plant typically has taken five to 10 years. But while building in China, the Shaw/Westinghouse Consortium perfected a modular construction method that shortens that timeline to about four or five years.

The leaner, simpler design also requires fewer construction materials.

"The total amount of commodities in each nuclear plant per megawatt [of energy generated] is reduced substantially, like a 40 percent reduction," McFarlane said.

Just for you Moi,

River

[moi621 (imported)]

<edit>

The leaner, simpler design also requires fewer construction materials.

"The total amount of commodities in each nuclear plant per megawatt [of energy generated] is reduced substantially, like a 40 percent reduction," McFarlane said.

Just for you Moi,

River

Less construction material?? Sounds like a house in Southern California. What away to promote security.

And less commodity too? Sell my Uranium/Plutonium ETF? ( I never bought it anyways )

Nuclear - It only takes one oopsy!

Moi

No Naked Roofs

[A-1 (imported)]

Hmmm.

The name seems to say it all.... FUK U SHIMA!

[Dave (imported)]

I've been wondering who would take the first step -- which administration would finally do this.

I've know for years that it would be impossible to simply shut down the current nuclear plants without replacing them.

That's been the dread all along - old design nuclear reactors breaking down thanks to the unsuitability of their design.

These plants are being built inside a current Southern Company complex, meaning they will share utilities with current operations. I don't remember what's in Vogte Ga but you can look it up at the Department of Energy's website or some other US government's list of power generators. It's all public knowledge.

[moi621 (imported)]

Yes Dave!

It is "nice" to see elder nuclear power generators updated without polluting new geography.

Lacking any government commitment to alternative to classic fossil fuel or Nuclear, what can we hope for?

What about America's reserves of Natural Gas? The silence is deafening? Who profits?

Smaller incremental energy production ala roof tops and biofuel lacks any real support.

Remaining suppressed! Repressed! Maintained as "energy for weirdos". Like Germany.

Moi

No Naked Roof Tops

[Sweetpickle (imported)]

Good for them.

It would be a big help if congress would get off it's ass and address the problem

of disposal of spent nuclear material.

[kristoff]

Good for them.

It would be a big help if congress would get off it's ass and address the problem

of disposal of spent nuclear material.

Just remember, it is always an issue of NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. Forcing the issue down someone's throat is the only way it will happen.

[erikboy (imported)]

About nuclear power.

About 80% of france's electricity is produced by nuclear plants. It gives to France interesting independence in energy imports. France has one of the lowest electricity price, while Denmark extensive windgenerator deployment has driven their electricity price up, to be the most expensive in europe. difference is twofold compared to France. And Denmark has only 20% energy coming from wind. One reason that forces Danish prices up is unability to store wind energy or regulate its production and thus forcing to sell it for very small price and buy electricity at highest possible prices most of the times.

Nuclear plants developement stopped practically after sixties. Very Low prices for uranium is the reason why there is no interest in new type reactors. Old lightwater reactors are also the reason of inefficient use of nuclear fuel and creating a lot of long lasting radioactive isotopes. actually there is no hurry with existing used fuel. It could be used once more if current reactors were slightly modified, so it apperas to be a valuable asset. If used in fast breeder reactors, then that same used fuel could last many many more years and leave almost no long lived radioisotopes, all burned up in reactor. And even then used fuel could be valuable source of extremely rare metals like rhodium, ruthenium etc. Thus digging it back into ground with a great expense is a huge waste of resources.

Only now when chinese appear to have resolved some problems with 4th generation fast reactors, which have some natural safety features, like selfstoppping chain reaction if temperature of core rises too high. And working at extremely high temperatures 800-900C that enables to use turbines at much higher efficiency or produce hydrogen very cheap, only now old nuclear countries like wake up from lethargy.

Germany will have serious energy problems. Germany is already deeply dependant on energy imports, particularily from frech nuclear plants, Russian natural gas, Germany receives Frances nuclear wastes in return of some electricity. Ironic, isn't it?

Also, technology chinese are using now in their 4th generation reactor was deveoped in Germany already during sixties, which Germans abandoned without further developement.

[feedback (imported)]

Lets see, the government,( you and I via taxes ) put up the money to build the reactors. If there is an accident which there are many if you care to check, the power company is only responsible for the first 50 million in damages and the gov. picks up the rest. They charge you for power, for cleaning up there messes for building it in the first place etc.etc.etc. In the mean time we are all being irradiated and suffering from an increase of all kinds of cancer just so a few large corporations can make a bundle. The radiation where I live is at about 5 times normal background radiation because of fukashima. I am old enough that it is probably not going to affect me much, but I have granchildren who are going to pay the price. How many million more people have to die before we get smart enough to say enough?

[erikboy (imported)]

If I didn't say it clear, then the problem of nuclear power is, its developement basically stopped after sixties. We blame ancient technologies in being inefficient, polluting, unstable, dangerous, while doing nothing to evolve, develope like it has happened to computers, cars, planes since sixties despite hundrers of thousand people have died in all kind of accidents that were avoidable with modern technology.

Even with that ancient nuclear technology We all know people who have suffered from car crash injuries or even died, while most of us do not know anybody suffered of sickness because of nuclear power plants.

There are much bigger problems with mental health, eating low quality food with questionable supplements shortening our lives.

Yes, things do happen, it is inevitable, but instead of throwing away the whole technology we should make it safer, less polluting, more efficient. It is like if I would stop flying because plane accidents are fatal most cases.

One more thing, natural background radiation differs greatly depending on region. For example, people live in places where natural background radiation dose exceeds ICRP-recommended radiation dose limits for radiation workers and is up to 200 times greater than average background levels. It is not well understood why these people do not die of radiation related diseases.

In that light, increase of normal average yearly radiation dose of 2,4 millisievert by 0,005 millisievert, caused by all nuclear tests and nuclear disasters sounds negligible.

There is more danger of having radioation related disease by living close to Older coal-fired power plants without effective fly ash capture that are one of the largest sources of human-caused background radiation exposure.