E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
This site in Sanmen, China, will house a Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor and is set to go online in 2013. China is building four AP1000s, and U.S. regulators on Thursday gave the green light for use here.
Opening the door to a new generation of nuclear reactors, federal regulators on Thursday approved a design that a nuclear watchdog group acknowledged is an improvement but still not ideal.
The AP1000 reactor, designed by Westinghouse Electric Co., is safer than the current generation of U.S. reactors, which date back 30 years or more, members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in voting for approval.
"The design provides enhanced safety margins through use of simplified, inherent, passive, or other innovative safety and security functions, and also has been assessed to ensure it could withstand damage from an aircraft impact without significant release of radioactive materials," NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko said in a statement.
Fears of an aircraft impact were heightened after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The Nuclear Energy Institute praised the approval. NEI's chief nuclear officer, Tony Pietrangelo, called it "an important step closer to the construction and operation of advanced-design reactors that can strengthen America’s energy security while producing large amounts of affordable electricity to help drive economic growth."
westinghousenuclear.com
Westinghouse uses this chart to showcase the AP1000's simpler design compared to traditional reactors.
Key features of the AP1000 are its fewer moving parts than in traditional reactors, especially in an emergency where radioactive fuel needs to be cooled. Current systems rely on pumps to supply water, but the AP1000 uses a massive water tank atop its structure that uses gravity to release the coolant.
Utilities in Georgia and South Carolina are seeking approval to build four AP1000 reactors, which Westinghouse touts with a trademarked campaign: "The Nuclear Renaissance Starts Here." China is among its earliest buyers, with four AP1000s being built there now.
No nuclear reactors have been built in the U.S. since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and talk in recent years of a renaissance was dealt a setback with Japan's Fukushima disaster last March.
The Obama administration, which has offered the project in Georgia $8.3 billion in loan guarantees, is "committed to restarting America’s nuclear industry -- creating thousands of jobs in the years ahead and powering our nation’s homes and businesses with domestic, low-carbon energy," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Thursday in praising the approval. He said it "marks an important milestone towards constructing the first U.S. nuclear reactors in three decades."
Nuclear energy does have an advantage over fossil fuels in that it does not emit the greenhouse gas carbon, but it faces stiff price competition from natural gas, which is much cleaner than oil and has dropped dramatically in price. Moreover, building a nuclear reactor is much more expensive and takes much longer than a power plant fueled by natural gas.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, which says it is not against nuclear power in principle, said in an earlier analysis of the AP1000 that its simplified design "is far less vulnerable than existing reactors to a total loss of AC power" during an accident. "As a result, risk assessments by the designers find that the probability that these reactors will experience a severe accident is much lower. For example, these analyses show that the probability of a core meltdown is 100 times lower than that for today’s plants.
But the group added that "little experience with full-scale reactors operating at full power is available to validate computer models of these safety systems, producing significant uncertainties."
It also faulted the AP1000 for "less robust containment systems, less redundancy in safety systems, and fewer safety-grade structures, systems, and components."
Population on rise around US nuclear reactors
Westinghouse, in its statement announcing the approval, touted the safety features and noted that lessons from Fukushima were factored in.
"The innovative passive safety design was recognized by the NRC as providing significant added capability that allows the plant to safely cope with a Fukushima-type event, a significant reason why the NRC Near-term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima-Daiichi Accident recommended" approval, it stated.
More safety features in new nuclear designs
UCS senior scientist Edwin Lyman told msnbc.com that the recommendation does not constitute a formal re-analysis "to identify and correct any vulnerabilities based on lessons learned from the Fukushima accident."
"It would be more efficient and cost-effective to address problems that could be corrected at the design stage now, before any new plants are constructed," he added. "After plants are built, any new safety requirements would have to be addressed through costly retrofits and additional dependence on operator actions."
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Finally, something we can sell to China. Maybe we can then afford to buy coal from them to power our own plants.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!
The problem isn't the safety of the reactor. The problem is the the DEADLY Waste that stays radioactive for THOUSANDS OF YEARS !!!!!!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! The waste issue has many solutions that need to be implemented! Ignorance is the only thing holding up progress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What we really need to be doing is developing more geothermal power. Geothermal creates no greenhouse gasses, no radioactive waste, does not kill birds, and is very cost effective. Contrary to what some people try to spew, geothermal in no way endangers water supplies since the depths to which you drill for setting up a geothermal plant are far below any water table used for drinking water so there is virtually no risk of any contamination. It is time that we start putting more money into this clean source of energy instead of looking at building more nuclear power plants when we have no where to store the waste from these plants. Geothermal plant are also very economical with a relatively short term payback of the initial cost of constructing the plants at the currently prevailing energy rates i this country.
Who is "we"? I assume you must be American then, well we or should I say you don't buy coal here, its exported, how do I know? I work at one of the largest coal ports on the west coast.
Reprocessing the fuel rods would minimize the amount of material to be contained. Maybe instead of wasting billions of dollars on AWG bull@!$%#, the money should be used to create practical ways to handle spent fuel and the fuel rods.
Will we catch up with France?
No such luck. China is already building a couple of dozen nuclear reactors compared to our two. They have to because they running short of coal. They also can do math so they won't be relying on solar cells or windmills except for export to greater fools like the US. The Europeans have already wised up, by the way, and aren't wasting money supporting "green energy" like they used to.
We are selling millions of tons of coal a year to China. Wake up.
The AP 1000 is a great design and the next design should be a Thorium reactor.
Then fusion.
AGW will be just a bad sci-fi novel.
So are the rumors that thorium is a much safer and more abundant nuclear fuel that uranium true, or not? I understand that a thorium nuke reaction can be shut down much more quickly and safely than a uranium reaction, but a thorium reaction is harder to start.
What's the deal with thorium?
Thorium? More like Borium!
Thanks a lot guns. Now I will have to watch Billy Madison again.
expat, it is my understanding that what you describe is, in fact, correct. It seems that uranium was chosen decades ago as the fuel of choice due to the fact that it can be enriched to weapons-grade material which thorium cannot.
thorium also contains 90 times MORE energy than uranium. the reasons for the use of uranium in reactors is plutonium for nuclear weapons and the whole system is already designed around the uranium/plutonium fuel cycle so just about everything would have to be changed.
the other major positive? drastically reduced nuclear waste, the thorium powered reactor does not produce fission byproducts like a uranium powerd one, and the end result of the fuel cylce is uranium, not plutonium.
heres the best part that should get everyones attention- a thorium reactor can NOT melt down. it works off of physics, as in the technicians at the reactor have to contantly tend to the reactor making constant adjustments etc otherwise it will simply shut itself down. you can walk away from a thorium reactor and it will simply shut itself down due to the physics of how it works. no year long decay heat to worry about no meltdowns, it just stops running.
this video explains a little better http://www.vice.com/motherboard/thorium-dream
if they want to claim a "nuclear rennesance" then they need to move FORWARD with designs and techniques, not put a band-aid patch on a 50 year old reactor design.
this new desing they are gushing over is just as failure prone and dangerous as the the old ones. it still works exactly the same way, still produces the exact same kind of waste and byproducts. the only difference? they put a huge water tank on top of it in the hope that if cooling is lost that the water in the tank will cool the core. sorry guys, that tank only will last about 1 1/2 days before it runs dry, it takes around a year for decay heat to subside enough for the core to not need constant cooling. this one will blow up just like chernobyl and fukushima in a loss of cooling event.
Pity we are still using nuclear fission though - I have had a design for years that uses radioactive decay to produce commercial level power and it is not a beta battery design.. and talk about Safety! -- This design has been confirmed by a 3rd party particle physicist. Not to mention in the old days I use to chat with Dr. Edward Teller. But instead of going with newer & safer tech we are just improving old tech.
We discussed the Generation V thorium nuclear reactors on another MSNBC Article. Yes, most of the posts above are correct. Addtionally, less nuclear materials are required. There is also the factor of almost no nuclear waste materials.
Also discussed before were the Generation III Modular Nuclear Reactors with Nuclear Waste Materials Recycling.
The disadvantages of Natural Gas, Methane, were also discussed.
Post of the day
@American: Thank you for bringing up Thorium! I've been reading about it for years and have wondered why in the world it's not getting more attention. It seems like it should be the next step in energy production. Safety is a big, huge factor in its favor, along with the fact that there's not a significant amount of leftover, forever radioactive material. I have read that the reactor/plant is easier and cheaper to build and could, possibly, be done on a large assembly-line scale with parts shipped to an installation site. Do you know if that's true?
I agree with you, the new reactor design may very well be an improvement over the older one, but why are we stopping there? I'm not an expert by any means but smaller, more efficient Thorium plants seem to be THE WAY to go.
This is why i like reading discussions on msnbc. Thanks guys for good comments - esp American.
This issue is one that has never been fully explained. First, uranium fuel is cheap and easy to enrich to 5% needed for a reactor. Second, plutonium was supposed to be the fuel source for Fast breeder reactors (used now in France for many years. Unfortunately neuclear power is now one of the most publicly ignorant forms of power generation. It still has one of the best records in ALL power generation!
I would go with the thorium too, but I will take the uranium reactor over wind and solar anyday.
RinOR,
Take a look at this link:
http://thoriumaustralia.org/
Thorium is the future. We have teh second largest reserves in the world.
About time. They can build one near my house anytime. Much better than inefficient and unreliable bird chopping wind turbines.
Imagine if coal, gas or nuclear power plants killed birds daily from normal operation. The greenies would go nuts. But have no problem with wind turbines killing birds and bats every day.
If I shot an eagle I would get arrested and fined and perhaps even jail time. But wind turbine operators get a free ride.
Newer turbine designs and slower speeds have cut bird deaths so much that the Audobon Society now supports building wind farms. FWI- Power lines kill >130 million birds per year. Windows kill >100 million. Coal and natural gas plants kill >14 million birds per year. Wind power is more bird-friendly than other power generators!
You have neglected to account for the amount of energy produced by these methods. Wind power produces a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the ammount of energy that coal and natural gas plants do. If you considered the number of bird deaths per kilowatt hour produced wind power is far, FAR less "bird friendly" than all other methods combined.
There are too many goddamned pigeons, anyway.
I like wind turbines as long as they are not in my back yard. Ten miles away would be nice! :<)
I already have 10KW of solar on the roof and in the two + months since activation they've already generated a MWH of electricity, (1000KWH). Not bad for a stones throw from Canada this time of year. Payback less than eight years.
As someone who spend his entire career architecting high reliability systems, I don't care for nuclear. Even if the failure rate is a zillion to one, statistically that one could be tomorrow. There is no such thing as a fail proof system.
Nat gas seems like a winner. The questing is fracking, how much damage does it really do.
If I ruled the world I'd do solar on rooftops big time. I'd then convert retired coal plants to "grid batteries". They would produce hydrogen using excess solar energy during the day then burn it at night to run turbines. The price is finally competitive for solar, (it only took half a century to get there!), but only if it's customer owned. That way there is no land acquisition, construction, environmental impact statement, investors, etc. Also, you reap the benefits instead of the power company.
Between solar, wind, nat gas, and hydro we could be all green without nuclear. Local generation would also obviate the need to upgrade transmission lines since we would reduce power transmission instead of constantly increasing it.
The US ignored the 1970s to 1990s NASA Study conducted at the Northshore of the Island of Oahu Hawaii, as the Kahuku NASA Experimental Wind Farm.
Instead of HAWTs the US should have gone to VAWTs. Research Advantages and Disadvantages of VAWTs versus HAWTs.
As far as Natural Gas, the main component is Methane. Methane is 2x more damaging to the Ozone Layer than CO2. Then there is the factor of redoing or upgrading the US NG Lines, or more neighborhoods will disappear in explosions. It is the Oil Corporations that are pushing Natural Gas to get every cent out of the depleted Oil Wells. The use of hydraulic Fracking, by pumping under high pressure toxic chemicals to crack the substraights underground is contaminating the underground streams, rivers, lakes, etc., as future drinking water. These toxic chemicals also make their way to the surface water as from underground springs. Also ever heard of sink holes that swallow entire towns, in this case instead of erosion as caused by cracking the underground substraights; similar to you standing on the roof, while someone destroys the house interior support walls.
The only way that I would use Solar Voltaic is under many conditions. The first being installation, no air gap between roof and panels (during a wind storm, the panels act like a biplane's additional wing). Second, a series of different configurations with manual switches, like solar panels to batteries to inverter(s) to house, switched completely off the grid; a from solar panel to inverter to house, still connected to grid (credits going back to Electric Company); etc..
I'm all for Nuclear and wind and solar -- anything to reduce our oil/coal imports is money in the bank! Our bank!
Piss off back to Faux News. This site is overrun with right-wing tards all of the sudden spewing their crap all over the comments section.
I view nuclear as a lesser danger than runaway AGW and so I'm reluctantly okay with nuclear because of its non-greenhouse gas emissions. The nuc disaster in Japan was the result of a one-two punch of earthquake and tsunami. I would hope that any nuc plants built in the U.S. would obviously take that into account.
I still don't like how nuc plants saddle future generations of human life with the burden of radioactivity exposure for thousands of years. Go solar and wind! The technology can also be developed for wind to not slice and dice birds and cause hemorrhaging in bats, I would strongly suspect.
Also, if the reactors in Japan had been left running they would have never melted down. Remember part of the power generated runs the plant too! Human error has been the source of ALL reactor problems! Not even the designs are as bad as poor judgement!
johnny- that is incorrect. the earthquake badly damaged the plant long before the tsunami hit and knocked out the generators. several reports from workers who were at fuku when the earthquake hit said that pipes were falling from the ceilings and ripping out of the walls durring the earthquake. the cooling water was already leaking out by the time the reactor scrammed.
@American,
I'm going to go out on a very short limb here and say that you are wrong on the account of the primary coolant leaking from the reactor before it even scrammed. If anything was not normal for the reactor, it scrams. It most likely scrammed before the earth was done shaking. The reports of workers seeing stuff falling from the ceiling and pipes ripping out would have been well outside the primary containment areas and would have been non-critical systems. Please site your sources, because I honestly think your wrong on many parts.
Better make sure it actually isn't a solar panel plant, You know Obama likes solar.
The problem is China has turned solar modules into a commodity. Solyndra's downfall was trying to go up against China with their own manufacturing plant. From the data i saw, they were building modules for $6/watt, trying to sell them for $3/watt, while their competitors were selling them for $1.50-$2/watt, (I bought mine at $1.58 and they've since dropped to $1.28!). That's why the CBO could predict to the month when they would go bankrupt over a year ago.
Obama should stop talking about building solar panels, (that train has left the station), and start talking about using them.
This is the first thing the Obama administration had done to increase our production of electrical power. Keep it up.
If you research what happened at Louisiana 2009 with President Obama, GE Generation III Modular Nuclear Power Plants (what the AP-1000 is), and the Brazil Alternative Energy (Fuel, Electricity, Purified Water), then you would not be cheering so much.
Such hypocrisy
Such hypocrisy!!!!!!
Do you feel better now that you've said that twice over and with excessive exclamation marks?
I don't have a problem with nuclear energy and I'm happy that we have a safer plant. It's the waste I'm concerned about. We still don't have a safe way to get rid of it, and the fact is that the US will store it with the lowest bidder who can supply a "safe" storage facility. That's what we need to invest time in fixing.
If you dump radioactive waste into an active, not erupting volcano, it will eventually sink back to the core of the planet where it originated.
wtf... did you get that plan from Dr. Evil or something?
Uncle Ben--has this theory been proven?
What?
Yes, I suppose if you simply drop something in an active inactive volcano, the plan is just crazy enough to work! Quickly! Use the reverse volcano to get rid of all human pollution!
Just uh... just one question. Where do you find a volcano that goes backwards?
Africa!! In the Afar depression. Erta Ale is a volcano that is normally just a pool of lava that does not leave the crater.
There is a problem with this though. I think the churning of the lava would just make the whole mess radioactive and it would never sink.
I sense BS. Better call myth busters.
Uranium is more dense than magma. The heavier weight will sink it, no reverse volcanic action needed. And no, I don't happen to have any radioactive waste on hand to try the theory. How about starting the descent with a reinforced torpedo. Once started, the force of inertia and gravity should continue to pull it downward. Any better ideas?
Nuclear fuel rods can be recycled. The depleted uranium is non-radioactive and safe, the enriched uranium can be repackaged, and the plutonium can be burned to get more energy. Everything else that is removed has a relatively short half-life.
The problem with this idea is that the nuclear waste created contains high densities of Transuranic (heavier than Uranium) elements that are created as the fuel undergoes neutron capture in the reactor. Many of these transuranics are not found with any real abundance in nature. Sticking them back into a volcano, or mountain or whatever doesn't solve the fundamental problem.
Ok, since most of you never worked with Nuclear Materials; I will give you a break, ever heard the word Pyrophoric.
Uranium, Plutonium, Depleted Uranium, etc. are pyrophoric materials, similar to when magnesium catches on fire, except in the case of the radioactive materials you will have radioactive "smoke" clouds.
If it is a plutonium smoke cloud, consider yourself dead, as even a microscopic piece will kill you with radioactivity and toxic heavy metal poisoning.
Think of the mechanics of a depleted uranium anti tank round, a toxic heavy metal, the sheer mass punches thru the armor of the tank, the pressure causes the depleted uranium to ignite inside the tank, causing a cloud of burning depleted uranium burning the tank crew and everything inside, maybe igniting the tank ammunition and causing secondary explosions, the heavy pieces of depleted uranium cause the steel to melt with molten steel pouring out the bottom of the tank.
And you want to throw that into a volcano? Sure you could use a steel box to make sure the nuclear materials sink before igniting; but, even then that would not insure the desired results without a low order yield unless you dispose of very small quantities at a time, as heat plus pressure equal pyrophoric, there is also the possibility of critical mass.
IT HAS TO BE INGESTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And Just how would that happen? Everybody stick their nose in it? Even a dirty bomb would probably not kill or harm as many people as the blast would kill........
FYI your skin is porous, your eyes and inside your nostrils (sinuses). As to why when I was with the Nuclear Accident Incident Response Assistance (NAIRA) Teams of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF), we wore self contained rebreathers and "spacesuits". After being trained on Biological (USAMRIID, Epidemiology) and certified my NAIRA Team also became Biological Accident Incident Response Assistance capable. Much later at Maryland and later (classified location) we became Chemical trained and certified on live agents, as CAIRA. The more Education, Certifications, etc. the faster the promotions. Because of these Certifications with refresher Courses (online) I have to keep a rebreather and "spacesuit" around, basically becoming the first "Field Agent" on the scene (not a good feeling, Field Agents are usually the first to die.) with my US Military Asymmetric Warfare Teams providing Security (most of them will not survive as they are only equipped with standard protective gear).
While here at Afghanistan we have gone into the dry water wells, and found full containers of various poisons used by the USSR 40th Army Occupation to massacre entire villages, as well as dud mustard gas handgrenades. One particular poison would if contacting skin would cause big water blisters, then a few minutes later you would drop dead. This was of interest to me since most of us were here before as the US Military Training Teams to Pakistan/Afghanistan to train the 1980s Pro US Afghan Muhajeen (NOT Osama Bin Laden, since he was living with his rich relatives at Saudi Arabia forming the new Islamic Jihadist Organization, Al Quada. And NOT the 1990s Fundamentalist Islamic Taliban that later massacred the 20,000 to 50, 000 1980s Pro US Afghan Muhajeen, their families, relatives, in laws, friends, etc.).
No..............................read a little more. Yes your skin is porous, and you cant wash it????????? You HAVE to breath it in! Or drink it hence water well poisoning. were talking nuclear power generation here not terrorism. Every design and plan to use a "dirty" bomb relies on ingestion. That info is some great "shock and aw', obviously military sourced. BUT, nuclear power generation companies, as far as i know, havent yet tried to poison the population of america.
Uncle Ben--love your rice, but that's some pretty far fetched "theory." The problem with waste is the lack of initiative to find a method of recycling. They wasted all that money on Yuca and didn't once think how it would be safely transported across the nation--especially on a constant basis. The US produces tons of nuclear waste yearly and you can add decommissioned nuclear weapons to that. On site recycling would be ideal.
Here's a map of the 100's of nuclear waste storage sites in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nuclear_waste_locations_USA.jpg
*cough*
Question: Is a piece of ash more dense than air?
Answer: Yes. It is. So,
Question: How does ash ever fly out of a chimney?
It is about time. We need to quickly approve the construction of a large number of nuclear power plants and forget about those stupid solar and wind power generators.
Why are solar and wind stupid? Please explain. Actually solar at least is a viable option and should be used in combination with all other forms of base power like nuclear; which I agree needs to be used more. New designs are safer and produce less waste and can be bridge to get us to fusion power which we can't lose sight of either. Wind has issue on the actual usage of the power that it produces. But solar is getting cheaper and more viable for the average homeowner, though for large business and manufactures it makes great sense. Don't believe everything the mainstream media feeds to you.
It is time
Solar is getting "cheaper" for homeowners only because it is heavily subsidized by federal and state governments.
Joyce, That is a stupid claim as those are both much safer technologies for producing power.
Do you even understand what nuclear power does??? It boils water to create steam, which then turns a turbine generator that creates electricity. Problem is the damn waste created by this insane process lives thousands of years??? We do not even make containers that will last long enough to contain this bull $hit radiation. These fricking plants you want so badly will be obselete after thirty years of use and deadly for years to come...... Helped build one, and left town before the fuel rods came in, saw a lot of shoddy work being done, all allowed by QC instectors.. Dangerous way to make electricity, Ask Japan???
Why do something so deadly for generations to come for the benefit of people today when there are other safe ways to produce power??
Why is Germany phasing out their Nuclear power and buying every damn solar cell we can sell them? Maybe they are smarter and not as brainwashed by the NRC as you. This is not a safe thing to do for the world of tommorrow......
No place to put the waste, eh? I understand Afghanistan has miles and miles of cave networks under their mountains~
Germany is phasing out nuclear power ONLY because of fear mongering done by people such as yourself. Germany had planned to expand their nuclear program before the Fukoshima disaster and that plan had the environmentalistsup in arms. After the disaster Merkel's only hope of staying in office was to change course and give the lemmings what they wanted. Germany has gone from an exporter of energy to an importer and energy costs have increased already. Green energy can not come close to making up the difference and an estimated 25-30 new coal and gas fired plants will be required to make up the difference. Now the Germans are importing energy from less reliable nuclear power plants in less regulated countries like Poland and the Czech Republic. Smarter? LOL! If they are so much smarter why are they getting bitten in the @ss by the decision they were forced to make by people like you?
http://www.tnr.com/article/environment-and-energy/96838/germany-merkel-fukushima-nuclear-activists?page=0,0
It's absurd to say solar doesn't make sense when there are millions of installations around the world. As I mentioned earlier, I live just a ferry ride from Canada and mine have generated almost 1 MWH just over the last two months! Even with my electric costs at 6.5 cents/KWH my payback will be less than eight
Without federal subsidies payback would be less than 17 years and prices have fallen 20% since I took the plunge. Since this trend is likely to continue, solar will become more and more popular for the average homeowner. One way to make them very competitive is to DIY the installation, it's really very easy.
The nice thing is, once they are paid for electricity is free! NO other energy source gives you that!
I am as conservative as they come and will readily admit that in Carters time they were completely absurd at $15/watt in 70's dollars. They are now approaching $1/watt in today's dollars! That's a huge difference. I think the tide turned when Bush put 10KW on the white house in 2003, price erosion has really accelerated since then. http://www.sma.de/en/products/references/solar-inverters/isolator/the-white-house.html
I agree with Rush on most things but he is way behind the times on this one. I did DIY for $2.20/watt compete, I could do it today for under $2. That includes everything down to the mounting bolts.
It's sad that Germany is still ahead of us on solar despite the fact that they are as far north as Canada. It makes much more sense here.
Be very sure your solar panels were not made in china. If you had to makeup for the Co2 produced with coal to make the solar cells and all the untreated hazardous waste china dumps your solar is not very clean. Why do you think almost every solar producer there is now manufactures in china. Even solar made as cleanly as possible take a long time to break even on CO2 and even longer when you look at the CO2 and other costs to dispose of the wastes created in production. This panels themselves are only the tip of the issues, almost all systems use lead based batteries that last a limited number of years. Lead is extremely toxic and take huge energy to recycle.... producing who know how much CO2 and other waste gases.
Not to say we should not pursue it but solar advocates need to be more like nuclear advocates and admit the true costs to solar.
They are NOT "Caves", they are former Mines, Mineshafts, Mining Tunnels, etc. that have been here since they were mining and extracting the jewels, gems, etc. selling them to the Egyptian Empire (B.C.). You want to poison everyone for thousands of miles, as these also feed many of the underground water.
Also you are talking about making unavailable all the High Tech Mineral Wealth of Afghanistan (the High Tech Minerals required to make all the cellular phones, smart phones, iPhones, iPads, Lithium Electric Car Batteries, etc. as a Strategic US Resource.).
We are the US Military Asymmetric Mountain Warfare Forces that have been up here in the Pamir Mountains for years of consecutive tours living with the Afghans that spelunkered into these former Mines and discovered the Lithium and other High Tech Mineral Wealth, later verified by the Scientific Teams of the CIA attached to us.
P111.................dude 1Mw in two months, you could do that peddling a bicycle. The typical nuke plant gens 2000Mw.....................a day!
Give it up......................let the sun grow vegetables and feed the planet.
Another win for Obama! Jobs, innovation, manufacturing, technology leadership and technology exports.
If you research what happened at Louisiana 2009 with President Obama, GE Generation III Modular Nuclear Power Plants (what the AP-1000 is), and the Brazil Alternative Energy (Fuel, Electricity, Purified Water), then you would not be cheering so much.
The Obama administration, which has offered the project in Georgia $8.3 billion in loan guarantees,
Great, possibly another 8.3 billion down the drain if something goes wrong. Why are we guaranteeing anything. We are Capitalist, if you want to take a risk on a new business venture, go ahead. The government needs to stay out of the financing business.
Who else is going to finance a nuclear reactor? Cleaner methods of producing electricity are in the national interest. The planning that goes into building a reactor is so thorough and the quality control so high that once they break ground it WILL be built correctly. Nuclear plants also produce CHEAP electricty (once you get past construction costs), which benefits everyone.
I am glad I read most of the posts as I was about to say something very similar to what you have posted. Follow the money.........Georgia. ( transplants from Chicago or Pelosi's brother-in-law). What the hell, it is only 8.3 B.
The AP 1000 was approved years back. "The design provides enhanced safety margins through use of simplified, inherent, passive, or other innovative safety and security functions, and also...."
However, it has undergone some 18 design changes as Westinghouse kept making changes in order to save money in the production costs. The 1000 is said to function for 50 years, and they want to save money?
jp-3747628,
Want to tell us who is going to build roads, dams, and bridges? There is no profit in any of the projects but your capitalists like to utilize them. Realize there are things the government has to do and provide funding for or your capitalist won't do them. If they did why is our infrastructure crumbling? Tell me what investment has guarantees? Not everything needs a profit motive. How about something that just benefits society.
Wolf - great point! No one ever wants to think about that. And to the point above, another $8.3 billion, yes but lets not forget about all the money that other corporations (oil companies) get in subsidies and loans. Can't just call out one area or company.
No profit?!?! Actually privately operated toll roads and bridges are incredibly successful. Better maintenanceand better mechanisms to control traffic flow and tons of profit for everyone involved including state and local governments. Privatization of roads and bridges has been going on in Europe for 30 years.
Huh? Currently 99.9% of the infrastructure is owned and controlled by government with "capitalists" completely shut out of the system. Perhaps if people like you weren't so concerned about "benefiting society" our infrastructure wouldn't be crumbling and society would be better off. No one wastes money like the government; paying double for something just because you can't stand the idea of someone making a buck is friggin insane.
BackCountry,
I suppose you like the idea of paying tolls on every road you travel??? Right?? Personally I don't and I'm glad here in Virginia we don't have every damn road with tolls on them like many states do, and our roads are some of the best in the country... America's infrastructure is crumbling because of the capitalists corporations in the first place dude.
You know Free Trade, Outsourcing, and their love of the War Machine of America.. Got to keep those Free Trade lanes open?? 12 aircraft carrier fleets to run??
Backcountry - Capitalists aren't "shut out of the system." Talk to a developer and they'll tell you they want to get the roads deeded over to the government ASAP forthe same reason they hand things like pools and green areas over to thehomeowners asociations. There's no money in managing and maintaining them. There's money to be made in paving the roads - if you can get someone to pay you to do it - but they're simply an overhead for the developer so why hold on to them until they'll need to be repaved?
?? Sorry but you'll need to explain the "logic" you've used to come to that conclussion.
Aside from that local and state taxes can cover the cost of the vast majority of roads and smaller bridges. Unusally expensive roads, bridges and tunnels will NEVER be able to be built using tax dollars alone, these things will ALWAYS be funded by tolls, and why shouldn't they be? You expect a taxpayer on the opposite side of the state to fund a bridge or road that they'll never use? If YOU use the road why shouldn't YOU pay for it?
America didn't become the greatest most prosperous nation on earth by being socialist, it got there by being capitalist. China dropped socialism and embraced capitalism, they have a $5 trillion surplus. We keep eroding capitalism and have embraced socialism, we have a $15 trillion deficit. That's no coincidence.
China now brags they are more capitalist than we are, that should be a national embarrassment.
No one is suggesting that every single little two lane road in the country be turned over to private companies that will charge a fee to use them. You can come up with all of the excuses you want the FACT of the matter is, as I've mentioned already, privately operated roads have been a success in Europe for 30 years. But hey, let's just ignore the facts and make decisions based on baseless speculation and assumptions.
Do you even know why you have all that great infrastructure. Do you even know who the largest beneficiary of that War Machine is, that's right Virginia.
How about we shut down everything Military at Hampton Roads Virginia and see how you sing a different tune. How about telling the USN SEAL Team there that they are worthless as the War Machine of America.
How about we shut down the Pentagon (Virgina).
By the way it is 10 USN Aircraft Carrier Groups after President Obama's April 2009 US Military Defense Budget Cuts of the USAF and USN. With a arse load of US Civilians getting laid off (Unemployed), over 95,000 USAF, and those US Civilians working for the USN for the eliminated USN Aircraft Carrier Group, USN Air Wing, and USN Support Ships (and USN Submarines).
add to post#12.11.
Also, Everett W Springer, ask your Virginia Congressional Representatives about what they felt about the movement of a USN Aircraft Carrier Group from Norfolk (Virginia) to Florida (possibly Mayport).
Like I stated before, anyone that b!tches about the US Military; as not to be a hypocrite demand that the US Military Installations in your State be Closed First. I know of many other States that want the US Military Installations.
The French recycle nuclear waste. The reason we don't is that we say it costs too much. But if they can do it then why can't we do it better and cheaper?? The trillions wasted on the big bail out should have been spent on such projects.
We should continue research into renewable energies but they are not yet at the level where they are efficient and polution free enough to provide power for our needs on a massive national scale. It would be awesome if they were, but they just aren't. Geothermal has great potential for specific regions and could be completely polution free but won't be exploited because of regulations and the fact that certain industries heavily oppose it, along with those who watch too much tv and think we'll make volcanos to kill us all.
That really leaves us with Nuclear as the best alternative for the next 50-100 yrs if we want to cut CO2 emissions. The question is then how do we make it better and safer!
Mike - you're right. Why can't we do it? Always leave me shaking my head. As for the renewables they are getting there. Honestly solar for instance won't ever be a base power but can be a great compliment and offset. If we can keep thinking long term instead of short term profits we will be so much better off as a country.
Carter signed a bill banning the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel because of the fear of weapons proliferation. the french run MOX fuel in thier reactors. MOX fuel is what caused fuku reactor #3 to explode like it did. a MOX fueled reactor that gets out of control cannot be shut down. insert control rods, increase water flow, doesnt matter once it hits the tipping point you cant stop it and you end up with a runaway prompt criticality ( explosion). watch the videos of each of the fuku reactors exploding, #3 was the only one running MOX fuel, and it blew sky high compared to the others.
plutonium does not forgive- if you dont handle it exactly right it will burn you bad. at research labs they have to keep carefull track of how much plutonium is in each area, even have to make sure that techs arent passing each other while transporting it- plutonium will instantly go critical if enough of it is brought close enough together.
you dont want this stuff powering anything, trust me. we've already seen what happens when things go wrong
Solar is now cheaper than nuclear, the crossover happened last year, BEFORE Japans disaster. Solar combined with "grid batteries" can be a full time source, use excess solar during the day to produce hydrogen, then use the hydrogen to run turbines at night.
The worst peak for energy is a hot August mid afternoon when everybody's air conditioner kicks in. That is precisely when solar is generating it's peak output. Energy usage is minimal at night. That makes solar an excellent adjunct even without grid battery technology.
Again, it's absurd to say solar doesn't work when there are millions of installations all over the world and the leader in installed output is Germany, as far north as Canada.
I am not certain of the relative cost of the reprocessing, but you are starting with refined uranium rather than a random arrangement of uranium oxides and other junk. In both cases you have to enrich the uranium, but when reprocessing you already start with significantly enriched uranium.
Part of the problem may be in the chemical processes used (converting the used rods to uranium hexafluoride or whatever is going to be used), but there are other more modern processes including one which can separate U235 from U238 in the gas phase using lasers.
I would be interested if anyone has some idea of why the cost would be higher.
This is an improvement in design, but I would like to see more cutting edge nucear designs such as pebble bed reactors being built.
I used to be against nuclear power, but at present I think it's just what we need. For all of those global deniers, research OVERWHELMINGLY support the idea that global warming is occurring due to human activities. As a scientist, I can say that it is very difficult to get scientists to agree on anything and scientists do NOT enter into conspiracies. Rather, they compete with each other. Storage of nuclear waste is a concern, but nothing compared with global warming. New reactor designs are MUCH safer than the ones that came out in the 1970's.
Research Thorium Generation V Nuclear Reactors.
http://thoriumaustralia.org/
Build 500. Let the government run them. Remove every coal burning plant left. Run all cars on electricity. In 50 years we would be the cleanest, healthiest, most prosperous nation in the world once again. Cheap, plentiful power is the key to our future.
Thank you for your thoughtful post. " Cheap, plentiful power is the key to our future." Ask the providers if they want "cheap." The last thing my electric provider and its stock holders want is cheap. It could be and so could gasoline and gas. The trend I see is the prices climbing. Heating oil should be less expensive than gasoline as it costs less to produce. It should be "cheaper." It is not, it is much more than gasoline, running nearly 4 smackers a gallon. I remember gas at 25 cents a gallon, for that matter I remember when I could catch a train to almost every little town in America. Who is really rinning the show?
Well first you'd have to overhaul the government if you want the end product to be cheap and plentiful. Everything the government does ultimately ends up costing double what it should after the special interests and pork is factored into the equation. How about we let private companies run them and limit government involvement to inspection and certification.
@Backcountry,
Hire all the ex-Navy nuclear trained techs, operators, chemists, and supervisors. They are "the government" as you so elegantly put it, but the Navy has never had one issue with it's operation of nuclear reactors. Just saying. I'm one of those ex-techs/operators.
The navy is NOT the government. As inefficient as the military is, they look like a well oiled machine compared to a typical bureaucracy. Military personnel are held accountable, when is the last time a SEIU leach was?
Nuclear will not be cheap, that multi billion plant will have to be paid for with interest, as well as a holding pond for spent fuel. When you put solar on your roof it pays YOU! Once it's paid off you get free electricity. Compare that to any other source.
My point was that if you want it to be "cheap" the government is not the option you want to choose. I think you'll agree that there is nothing "cheap" about anything the Navy does. Cost efficiency is hardly even a consideration when dealing with military expenditures.
Yes, all Navy personnel are government employees. They are a completely different class that politicians, but their pay comes from the military budgets which has to be approved by the politicians. But you are correct, nukes in the fleet are held accountable to high standards.
@Backcountry,
My first post was strictly for operating concerns, not money. You'll get the best bang for the buck with ex-navy nukes. In terms of integrity, training, and doing the job, there really are no better.
I'm still praying for cold fusion.
Polywell fusion is a better bet. We might see a reactor by the end of the decade.
Dream on, they've been touting that for decades. Fusion is the worlds ultimate gold plated buggy whip.
Yes! Yes! A thousand times, YES!
What about the 87,000 metric tons of Spent nucleor fuel sitting around in cooling pools at all the current nucleor sites?
What about the 108 sites that are uninhabitable and may never be able to be clened up and reusable agian?
Yucca Mountan was closed down and we have no other strategy for long term storage of SNF. We have no nucleor waiste reclaiming facilites whatsoever.
Most f teh other industrial lized countries are abondaning Nucleor even thoughthey allready have reproccesing plants etc. because they have discovered reprocsing nucleor feul is more polluting than just burying in the ground.
Maybe we should deal with the problems we already have first before adding more to those already existing problems that are being ignored.
We could reprocess the waste...
If we had the facilites. Carter had it outlawed in the U.S. for fears about creating plutonium as a by product. The Only reproceesing Plant now being built in the U.S. the Savanna river plant is years behind schedule and billins of dollars over budget and has not been licensed for operation.
Before you decide to support something blindly maybe you should do some research about it. Yo will also learn that the reprocessing of nucleor waiste is so dirty that no country has built any new reproccesing plants in years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
http://www.dcbureau.org/201109296338/national-security-news-service/savannah-river-site-gets-nuclear-waste-%E2%80%93-national-academy-of-sciences-draft-report-confirms-nuclear-weapons-testing-not-needed.html
Coal is environmentally FAR more disastrous than nuclear. It's not even close. What about the damage done by coal mining.
" In mid-2010, according to OSM, more than 100 fires were burning beneath nine states, most of them in Colorado, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Utah and West Virginia. But geologists say many fires go unreported, so that the actual number of them is nearer to 200, across 21 states"- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire#Environmental_impact
A coal fire under Centrailia Pennsylvania has been burning for 50 years and a coal fire in China has been going for almost 150 years! Coal seam fires in China are estimated to account for 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear may not be perfect but it is a hell of a lot better than what we're doing now and a hell of a lot more piratical and efficient than any other thing we're spending billions on now.
There is no such thing as a safe nuclear reactor. Just lower probability of failure. Solar, wind, and nat gas could meet 100% of our needs.
David Noah, when you allow people to tie up the operation of such facilities for years and years with any and all possible court challenges, then you get the nuclear "industry" that we have today
Well, this is great news. If some American power companies get started on this right away, we could see new plants on line in six or eight years.
One way or another we need electricity. I like clean coal and hydro. I don't mind nuclear. Wind is great, but too inefficient. Solar would be great if we had good batteries and it was affordable. We will be fine as long as emotion doesn't get in the way of science.
Yes please, more clean energy is good energy. Build 100 of these dang things.
Okay let take a look at the massive water storage unit on top which supposedly will release water to cool the reactor. So we build a really strong reactor to withstand a terrorist plane attact, problem being terrorist are not stupid all they need to do is take out the water storage. No water and we have instant China syndrome. Yep putting the coolant up on top so it's an easy target is a real Einstien move let give the regulators a gold star. should we do the star now or after we start glowing. Sure putting the water on top means no pumps are needed but would you rather have pumps or the China syndrome. Me I am kinda voting for pumps and a secure cooling system. Hey anyone check out the Japanese after they lost cooling it's getting worse everyday for them.
Did I miss the part of the article where it said there would be no pumps or back up systems? Nuclear plants are full of redundancies with every new design accounting for any issues that have been raised in the past. What a waste of a perfectly good rant.
@John,
Do you have any basic idea of how physics and pumps work? A passive cooling system, like the one that you stated, is good for long term cooling until the core reaches a certain temperature. To maintain cooling in a critical, at power reactor, you need pumps, and very large ones, to move a specific amount of cooling medium through the core to get the heat out and off to a steam generator. Even for long term cool downs, pumps are required to continually cool the core. A pump free reactor isn't really a feasible idea.
I don't like nuclear power because I don't like nuclear waste. But what I like even less is all the fracking going on now to get out the oil in Nebraska and the natural gas in Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio. That is going to poison the water supply. And climate change is a very real threat. I'd much rather we upgraded to the smart grid so T Boone Pickens can put in all those windmills. And I can only hope we can develope solar. So as a last resort and only as a temporary measure we might have to go with the nuclear option. Looks like Obama is committed to it. Perhaps some day we can put nuclear waste on a space ship and crash it into the sun to get rid of it. The waste not the sun lol.
The rocket idea has been completely flushed. One failure could poison a vast area of land and/or ocean. Imagine tons of highly radioactive wast with thousand year half lives, spewed over hundreds of square miles, way too great a risk.
Well I happen to be Pro-Nuclear power however I have to say this because so many people are flat out wrong.
There is no such thing as clean coal, or clean nuclear power, its all a matter of degress and these 2 things are just "Cleaner".
Sure there isn't 'clean' nuclear but the most efficient designs have waste that contains so little reactivity that within a century it is safe.
We need to have a nuclear renaissance because we need to be phasing out the old reactors and going to new designs that can use the spent fuel from older designs as their fuel and I saw where they can also use material from old atomic weapons as fuel too.
It's simple, who is using a laptop from the 60's or 70's? No one is!
So why are we still using 40 year old nuclear reactors?!?