U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
faranim
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:14 pm UTC
Location: Maryland, USA

U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby faranim » Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:41 pm UTC

Figured people on here would be excited about this. It's hard to believe that people still get all hysterical about nuclear power (Meltdowns! Nuclear waste! etc..). I can't believe it's taken this long to finally get the ball rolling again.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/16/obama.jobs/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/busin ... nukes.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8518670.stm

Spoiler:
Loan guarantees pave way for first new U.S. nuclear reactors in years
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* NEW: Modern reactors far safer than pre-Three Mile Island reactors, energy secretary says
* NEW: Loan applications for more nuclear facilities being considered, Steven Chu says
* NEW: GOP senator from Georgia praises Obama's decision as "a step in the right direction"
* 3,500 on-site construction jobs and 850 permanent operations jobs projected, officials say

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees Tuesday for two nuclear reactors to be built in Burke County, Georgia.

A new nuclear power plant has not been built in the United States in three decades.

The new reactors are to be part of an expansion of an existing nuclear facility near Augusta, Georgia, operated by Atlanta-based Southern Co.

The loan guarantees will help create 3,500 on-site construction jobs and 850 permanent operations jobs, administration officials claimed. The reactors will help provide power to over 550,000 homes and 1.4 million people, it said.

"This is only the beginning," Obama said during a visit to an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers training facility in Lanham, Maryland. "We'll continue to provide financing for clean energy projects ... across America."

The president acknowledged that construction of new nuclear facilities will meet with some political resistance. Nuclear development has traditionally been opposed by more progressive elements of the Democratic Party. But nuclear power, he said, remains the country's largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions.

"To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple," he said.

At the same time, the president argued, traditional Republican proponents of nuclear power should acknowledge that comprehensive energy legislation is needed to help provide incentives to make clean energy more profitable.

Any new nuclear facilities, he promised, will "be held to the highest and strictest safety standards."

Leading congressional Republicans -- including both Georgia senators -- were quick to praise Obama's decision.

"This announcement represents a step in the right direction," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia. "The power generated by [the Burke County facility] is safe, reliable, emissions-free and environmentally responsible."

Nuclear power critics, on the other hand, slammed the administration's decision to back the construction of new reactors.

"The last thing Americans want is another government bailout for a failing industry, but that's exactly what they're getting from the Obama administration," energy analyst Ben Schreiber said in a press release issued this past weekend.

Schreiber works for the progressive group Friends of the Earth, which opposes nuclear power.

"The Department of Energy is putting taxpayers on the hook for bailing out costly and dangerous nuclear reactor projects when the loans used to finance those projects default. This is great news for Wall Street but a bad deal for Main Street."

The risk of default is high, Schreiber argued, while nuclear power "remains unsafe and dirty."

Energy Secretary Steven Chu, in turn, claimed that modern nuclear reactors are far safer than those built prior to the accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979.

Chu also told reporters in a conference call that one of the reasons the Georgia facility was the first to receive a federal loan guarantee is the project's low probability of default.

He added that the administration is now considering at least a half-dozen additional loan applications for nuclear facilities.

We are working "as hard and as fast as we can" to "recapture the lead in nuclear technology," Chu said. America has been "sitting on the sidelines... for far too long."

Obama's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget triples loan guarantees for nuclear power plants to over $54 billion, the White House noted.

User avatar
The EGE
not very good at pickup limes
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 12:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby The EGE » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:05 pm UTC

I like this. As many problems as there are with storing the spent waste, it's cleaner than coal and oil-based plants, and it's politically safer than oil, because we have some deposits, and the two largest deposits are in the friendly nations of Canada and Australia.
sillybear25 wrote:But it's NPH, so it's creepy in the best possible way.

Shivahn wrote:I'm in your abstractions, burning your notions of masculinity.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby mmmcannibalism » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:13 pm UTC

Please let this work out

It would be awesome if we actually started working towards something resembling good non oil energy.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Briareos
Posts: 1940
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:40 pm UTC
Location: Town of the Big House

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Briareos » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:17 pm UTC

I'm Briareos Hecatonchires, and I approve this message. You know what adjective hardly ever gets used anymore? "Atomic." It has a real 1950s ring to it now, I think.
Sandry wrote:Bless you, Briareos.

Blriaraisghaasghoasufdpt.
Oregonaut wrote:Briareos is my new bestest friend.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby SummerGlauFan » Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:10 pm UTC

Yay! YAY! Finally, energy policy that doesn't sound like the ravings of someone possessed.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
Josephine
Posts: 2142
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:53 am UTC

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Josephine » Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:22 pm UTC

I'm going to go celebrate now. This is a beautiful thing.
Belial wrote:Listen, what I'm saying is that he committed a felony with a zoo animal.

User avatar
NightStar
"Hold very still, Mr President....."
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:25 am UTC
Location: Transient/Nomadic

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby NightStar » Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:21 pm UTC

Indeed, this is something to be pleased about. I particularly applaud merging the goals of job creation and cleaner energy generation into one project; the more people on board, the more likely it is to happen. I notice the opposing viewpoints in the article the OP quoted are some pretty weak talking points, attempting to label this as a "bailout" for the benefit of "Wall Street". Not that there aren't valid arguments against nuclear power, but that's a transparent ploy to rouse the ire of ignorant people. It's so bad, in fact, that I'm pretty sure the journalist cherry-picked the the crappiest counter-arguments. Not exactly unbiased reporting, but I agree that nuclear power is a good idea.
Hawknc wrote:Madness?
THIS IS COLLEGE!
*Kicks a beer keg over a balcony*

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby EMTP » Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:51 pm UTC

I would like to see them step on the gas in developing the 4th-generation liquid sodium reactors Obama referenced in the State of the Union. I was initially skeptical of this technology, which seemed too good to be true -- they burn other plants' waste, produce only a small amount of short-lived waste themselves, are much less meltdown-prone -- it seemed like the hot air you hear on the internet or in the front section of Popular Mechanics. But James Hansen has a long section about them in "Storms of my Grandchildren," and I am officially a convert. It would seem that we have the technology to replace coal, oil and gas in the next 20-30 years, if the will is there. :|
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby The Reaper » Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:05 am UTC

EMTP wrote:I would like to see them step on the gas in developing the 4th-generation liquid sodium reactors Obama referenced in the State of the Union. I was initially skeptical of this technology, which seemed too good to be true -- they burn other plants' waste, produce only a small amount of short-lived waste themselves, are much less meltdown-prone -- it seemed like the hot air you hear on the internet or in the front section of Popular Mechanics. But James Hansen has a long section about them in "Storms of my Grandchildren," and I am officially a convert. It would seem that we have the technology to replace coal, oil and gas in the next 20-30 years, if the will is there. :|
I echo your wants.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Vaniver » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:17 am UTC

Woooo! Go Nuclear!
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Josephine
Posts: 2142
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:53 am UTC

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Josephine » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:49 am UTC

Wow, a topic where everyone agrees. nice.
Belial wrote:Listen, what I'm saying is that he committed a felony with a zoo animal.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby mmmcannibalism » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:21 am UTC

nbonaparte wrote:Wow, a topic where everyone agrees. nice.


Then again, it may mean the 2012 thread has some accuracy and the world is ending.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Skraxt
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:18 am UTC

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Skraxt » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:24 am UTC

This is the first news to noticeably improve my day in a long while.
"Truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion" -Francis Bacon

User avatar
Krong
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:49 am UTC
Location: Charleston, South Cackalacky

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Krong » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:36 am UTC

nbonaparte wrote:Wow, a topic where everyone agrees. nice.

If we want to change this, we can bring up Yucca Mountain.
The answer to the question "What’s wrong with the world?" is just two words: "I am." -- G. K. Chesterton (attributed)

letterX
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:00 am UTC
Location: Ithaca, NY

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby letterX » Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:58 am UTC

Krong wrote:
nbonaparte wrote:Wow, a topic where everyone agrees. nice.

If we want to change this, we can bring up Yucca Mountain.

EMTP wrote: -- they burn other plants' waste, produce only a small amount of short-lived waste themselves, are much less meltdown-prone --

Stop arguing and build this shit.

Actually, I keep seeing in the political coverage about how the main (supposed) opposition to nuclear power comes from elements of the Democratic party. Who are these people and how did they get in my party? Seriously. It's time for real liberalism to tell people to shut up and learn the science.

MrEmu
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:29 pm UTC

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby MrEmu » Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:05 am UTC

seriously, I'm pretty sure that any time there is a consensus on the xkcd boards, it should be instantly set as policy.

also, wholehearted agreement with:
letterX wrote:Actually, I keep seeing in the political coverage about how the main (supposed) opposition to nuclear power comes from elements of the Democratic party. Who are these people and how did they get in my party? Seriously. It's time for real liberalism to tell people to shut up and learn the science.

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Sharlos » Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:52 am UTC

letterX wrote:Actually, I keep seeing in the political coverage about how the main (supposed) opposition to nuclear power comes from elements of the Democratic party. Who are these people and how did they get in my party? Seriously. It's time for real liberalism to tell people to shut up and learn the science.


You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the Democrats are a liberal party. They may have liberals in them, but the party itself isn't. This is just another symptom of having a two-party system.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Zamfir » Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:55 am UTC

I hate to rain on the consensus, but I am not sure this news is very good*.

In essence, it means that nuclear power is currently too expensive to build under commercial terms, and that's a not a good message at all. Banks do have very good people on energy affairs, and if they won't lend you money under affordable terms, it's because they have good reasons to assume you might not be able to pay it back.

Nuclear power is not so popular that we can expect a long line of subsidized loans for the next decades. Britain for example has a pretty pro-nuclear government, but it made clear that it expects nuclear power without government aid, and it will not give out similar loan guarantees.

In some countries, like France and Japan, the government in effect subsidizes nuclear power. Mostly for energy security reasons, and also because they think that financial markets overestimate the financial risks of nuclear power. This can be a reasonably healthy situation, even if it's far from perfect.

But this US plan is part of a one-off stimulus, and included more as pork to convince some congressmen than because of real government support of nuclear power. That's not a good basis to build an industry on at all.

EMTP wrote:I would like to see them step on the gas in developing the 4th-generation liquid sodium reactors Obama referenced in the State of the Union. I was initially skeptical of this technology, which seemed too good to be true -- they burn other plants' waste, produce only a small amount of short-lived waste themselves, are much less meltdown-prone -- it seemed like the hot air you hear on the internet or in the front section of Popular Mechanics.

Keep in mind that sodium-cooled fast breeders are not a future technology, it's a pretty mature technology that just costs too much. The first (small) commercial plant was built in the US in 1956 (!), and melted down in 1966. France even had a full-scale 1200 MWe plant called the Superphenix since the early 1980s. Until now, all have been too expensive to build, too expensive to operate and so tricky to manage that they are shut down most of the time.

The Japanese are at the moment pretty serious about them (even though their test reactor burned down in 1995 or so), and it looks as if Mitsubishi might try again to design an affordable fast breeder. It might work out this time, but wouldn't bet my pension funds on it.

* I am not exactly a nuclear opponent, my current job is in the nuclear industry.

User avatar
Amnesiasoft
Posts: 2573
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 4:28 am UTC
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Amnesiasoft » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:27 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:But this US plan is part of a one-off stimulus, and included more as pork to convince some congressmen than because of real government support of nuclear power. That's not a good basis to build an industry on at all.

To be fair though, part of these problems are probably because nuclear power has such a terrible image to most of the population of the United States. If building some new plants can show people that their belief of "OH MY GOD WE'RE GOING TO DIE FROM RADIOACTIVE SPACE ZOMBIE MUTANTS FROM THE 5TH DIMENSION BECAUSE OF NUCLEAR POWER" is wrong, it would be a good step in the right direction.

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Sharlos » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:56 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:I hate to rain on the consensus, but I am not sure this news is very good*.

In essence, it means that nuclear power is currently too expensive to build under commercial terms, and that's a not a good message at all. Banks do have very good people on energy affairs, and if they won't lend you money under affordable terms, it's because they have good reasons to assume you might not be able to pay it back.

Considering much of the reason getting a nuclear power plant built is so expensive is due to government over regulation, I don't have much of a problem with this.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:28 am UTC

Zamfir wrote: In essence, it means that nuclear power is currently too expensive to build under commercial terms, and that's a not a good message at all. Banks do have very good people on energy affairs, and if they won't lend you money under affordable terms, it's because they have good reasons to assume you might not be able to pay it back.

Nuclear power is not so popular that we can expect a long line of subsidized loans for the next decades. Britain for example has a pretty pro-nuclear government, but it made clear that it expects nuclear power without government aid, and it will not give out similar loan guarantees.

While I'm far from an expert of the the ins and outs of nuclear power economics, I always kinda got the vibe that government backed loans were considered necessary given how prone governments are to meddling with them. If a local government randomly turns against you mid-construction or a new lode of regulations are thrown on your plant, the loss over a multi-billion dollar investment can be enormous. A series of delays that amount to putting the plant a year behind schedule can easily cost the investors hundreds of millions, having the government hold some of the risk when they themselves are the cause of much of the risk isn't unreasonable. However, I don't know if the plants would be considered reasonable investments in the absence of potential government interference, just that the government guaranteeing part of the plant makes some sense in the context of the plant being investment-neutral.

I would agree though that this being part of a stimulus package seems rather silly, you just don't randomly decide to build one out of political urging and throw it down wherever it seems most politically expedient and expect economic results.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Zamfir » Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:08 am UTC

(TLDR:) If you want to do something potentially dangerous, it's up to you to show it's safe enough. If showing that reasonably takes heavy regulations and a legal process, it's still up to you to pay for those. If those are unreasonable, the government should change them instead, not give compensation money.

Sharlos wrote:Considering much of the reason getting a nuclear power plant built is so expensive is due to government over regulation, I don't have much of a problem with this.

Bubbles wrote:While I'm far from an expert of the the ins and outs of nuclear power economics, I always kinda got the vibe that government backed loans were considered necessary given how prone governments are to meddling with them. If a local government randomly turns against you mid-construction or a new lode of regulations are thrown on your plant, the loss over a multi-billion dollar investment can be enormous.

The general principle in regulating potentially dangerous activities (not just nuclear) is that it's up to the person wanting them to carry the costs. Not just the cost of performing them safely, but also the costs of regulation, inspection and a correct juridicial process. After all, they (or we) are the ones wo want to do something potentially dangerous, so it's our burden to show that the risks are acceptable.

The government sets the standards and procedures to determine acceptability. In return, the government is expected to make them "reasonable", without excessively high standards or excessively complicated and delaying procedures. But of course defining "reasonable" and "excessive" isn't clear-cut at all, and different people disagree on them.

So if a government sets certain regulations and procedures, it's up to the utility to either accept the costs involved (including those of potential delays), or to decide to refrain from the activity. If a government (or the democratic process) thinks that the costs involved are unreasonable, they should lower the standards or ease the process. Not give out money to compensate for the (very real) costs.

In practice, governments are very willing to listen about suggestion to make things more reasonable. (That is, unless they didn't want any plants in the first place, in which case you could just as well stop trying). They like a smooth process as much as anyone, but they have to give other involved parties like local governments and the public a say too.

When it comes to safety standards and requirements, it's very clear that there will be no significant easing. There is just no support for that among the people in Europe and North America. Procedures are a different affair. Most countries (including the US) have new procedures in the books to make licensing less of a risk, but most countries haven't tried them yet.

The general principle is to put make-or-break points to the front, when investment is still low. So local governments and activists get their legal say at an early stage, but after a decision as been taken and lots of money invested they shouldn't be able to postpone again. But keep in mind that you can't have a proper decison process without any designs and drawings and subcontractors and other details known, so there will always be some siginificant work before the break points. And the unavoidable financial risks involved should be for the people who want to have a plant.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby aleflamedyud » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:36 pm UTC

Once I've stopped web-surfing and done my weeks of homework over the next day or two, I totally want to buy the Obama Administration several rounds of drinks for this.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:48 pm UTC

High five, Obama. Strong work.

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Cynical Idealist » Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:33 am UTC

Excellent. We need some new, clean plants. Hopefully, once the plants are operational, some coal plants can be shut down.

Spoiler:
Vaniver wrote:Woooo! Go Nuclear!

EMTP wrote:I would like to see them step on the gas in developing the 4th-generation liquid sodium reactors Obama referenced in the State of the Union. I was initially skeptical of this technology, which seemed too good to be true -- they burn other plants' waste, produce only a small amount of short-lived waste themselves, are much less meltdown-prone -- it seemed like the hot air you hear on the internet or in the front section of Popular Mechanics. But James Hansen has a long section about them in "Storms of my Grandchildren," and I am officially a convert. It would seem that we have the technology to replace coal, oil and gas in the next 20-30 years, if the will is there. :|

aleflamedyud wrote:Once I've stopped web-surfing and done my weeks of homework over the next day or two, I totally want to buy the Obama Administration several rounds of drinks for this.

Heisenberg wrote:High five, Obama. Strong work.

You're...you're all agreeing on something. And I'm agreeing with all of you.

Apocalypse in 3...2...
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

Paranoid__Android
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:54 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Paranoid__Android » Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:56 am UTC

Cynical Idealist wrote:Excellent. We need some new, clean plants. Hopefully, once the plants are operational, some coal plants can be shut down.


That's just never going to happen, at least not until they are past their usable lifetime.
If you remember the massive power-cut in New York a few years back, that kinda showed what stress the energy grid is under, they probably need all the extra capacity they can get.
The Great Hippo wrote:Paranoid__Android,
... truly, you are a champion among champions. ...

MrGee
Posts: 998
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby MrGee » Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:42 am UTC

Meh...I wanted fusion! :(

Pierrot
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:22 am UTC

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Pierrot » Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:20 am UTC

Ah nuclear energy. One of the most efficient and yet the one of the most misunderstood sources of power.
By the way, does anyone know what type of reactor will be built?

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Kulantan » Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:24 am UTC

Pierrot wrote:By the way, does anyone know what type of reactor will be built?

Two AP1000s
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
LuNatic
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:21 am UTC
Location: The land of Aus

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby LuNatic » Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:39 am UTC

Whoa, about bloody time. Can they convince Australia's government next?
Cynical Idealist wrote:
Velict wrote:Good Jehova, there are cheesegraters on the blagotube!

This is, for some reason, one of the funniest things I've read today.

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Sharlos » Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:26 am UTC

LuNatic wrote:Whoa, about bloody time. Can they convince Australia's government next?

Maybe South Australia. Maybe.

Good luck with the rest of the country.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Zamfir » Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:48 am UTC

Sharlos wrote:
LuNatic wrote:Whoa, about bloody time. Can they convince Australia's government next?

Maybe South Australia. Maybe.

Good luck with the rest of the country.

Is the barrier that the government is not allowing nuclear plants, or that it is not providing them (through a state utility, or a loan system)?

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Sharlos » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:07 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Sharlos wrote:
LuNatic wrote:Whoa, about bloody time. Can they convince Australia's government next?

Maybe South Australia. Maybe.

Good luck with the rest of the country.

Is the barrier that the government is not allowing nuclear plants, or that it is not providing them (through a state utility, or a loan system)?


A nuclear power plant would find it almost impossible to get approval, except maybe in South Australia, which has a uranium mine and is opening another one.

The difficulty in getting approval comes from public opinion against nuclear power (which is hovering under 50% support for it), as well as even more out of touch politicians, especially at the federal level (The South Australian state government is more amenable to the idea of nuclear power than the federal government is).

Regarding funding, I have no idea, there are no current programs that would specifically support a nuclear power plant being constructed that I'm aware of, and the coal industry lobby would probably kill any attempt at one.

masakatsu
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:02 pm UTC

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby masakatsu » Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:11 pm UTC

The plant where the construction is going to be at is about 10 to 20 miles from where I work. It will be a good thing for our economy and our tourism industry will do a little better from the protestors. Sweet!
I will not attack your math, just your epistemology.

You think you have it bad, I teach Intro to Project Management to Undergrads.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Zamfir » Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:20 pm UTC

masakatsu wrote:The plant where the construction is going to be at is about 10 to 20 miles from where I work. It will be a good thing for our economy and our tourism industry will do a little better from the protestors. Sweet!

That's brilliant. My company's tiny reactor is under constant flak from the local tourist industry, who claim it's scaring people away (perhaps they are right). Setting up a joint program to lure protestors, and offering them special packages at the local hotels might be win-win.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby The Reaper » Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:24 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
masakatsu wrote:The plant where the construction is going to be at is about 10 to 20 miles from where I work. It will be a good thing for our economy and our tourism industry will do a little better from the protestors. Sweet!

That's brilliant. My company's tiny reactor is under constant flak from the local tourist industry, who claim it's scaring people away (perhaps they are right). Setting up a joint program to lure protestors, and offering them special packages at the local hotels might be win-win.
For extra lol's, use irradiated oil piping to make furniture.

masakatsu
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:02 pm UTC

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby masakatsu » Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:04 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
masakatsu wrote:The plant where the construction is going to be at is about 10 to 20 miles from where I work. It will be a good thing for our economy and our tourism industry will do a little better from the protestors. Sweet!

That's brilliant. My company's tiny reactor is under constant flak from the local tourist industry, who claim it's scaring people away (perhaps they are right). Setting up a joint program to lure protestors, and offering them special packages at the local hotels might be win-win.


Yea. We have the Augusta National, SRS, and Plant Vogel. Got protestors down to a science.
I will not attack your math, just your epistemology.

You think you have it bad, I teach Intro to Project Management to Undergrads.

User avatar
LuNatic
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:21 am UTC
Location: The land of Aus

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby LuNatic » Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:55 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Sharlos wrote:
LuNatic wrote:Whoa, about bloody time. Can they convince Australia's government next?

Maybe South Australia. Maybe.

Good luck with the rest of the country.

Is the barrier that the government is not allowing nuclear plants, or that it is not providing them (through a state utility, or a loan system)?


Thanks largely to the Green party, 'nuclear' is the ultimate buzzword to get people up in arms and protesting around here. Seriously, people who litter knowingly and uncaring on a daily basis and write off climate change as hippie propaganda will trample each other down in an effort to protest anything that involves the word nuclear.
Cynical Idealist wrote:
Velict wrote:Good Jehova, there are cheesegraters on the blagotube!

This is, for some reason, one of the funniest things I've read today.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Telchar » Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:36 am UTC

The barrier has also been waste storage. The US doesn't reprocess nuclear waste, something that should change, but until then we don't really have a way to store it. We built a giant facility in the middle of the Nevada desert called Yucca Mountain, but we can't use it because, and this is a simplification, Harry Reid won't let us. And he's not even citing a credible reason. People in Nevada won't get exposed to significantly more radiation than anywhere else. You would get exposed to more radiation from cosmic rays on a trip to Washington DC from Nevada. The real concern is transporting the nuclear waste. No one wants train cars full of nuclear material going through their town.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. to build new Nuclear Reactors

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:02 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:The real concern is transporting the nuclear waste. No one wants train cars full of nuclear material going through their town.

I do! Trains, storage, and security all mean jobs.

Unfortunately, I'm the minority among a majority of people who don't want 'nukular waste.' This is definitely an issue, but it's not a new one, and it may be resolved when Reid gets deposed in November.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Prefanity and 23 guests