04-30-12, 12:08 PM | #1 |
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 5,525
Thanks: 1,162
Thanked 374 Times in 305 Posts
|
US has approved 2 new nuclear power plants
For the first time in 30+ years the US has given approval to build two new nuclear power plants in Georgia. I read about it in Machine Design magazine I read at work. The new plants will provide Georgia with 10% of its power requirements (they don't mention the plant outputs). They claimed the cooling system used is going to be "a convection-cooling loop that is gravity powered and can run for days without power." They also say that 95% of nuclear fuel can be reused in the reactor which I was unaware of. Storage of nuclear waste would be done on site.
(just a link I googled) Construction of 2 Nuclear Reactors Approved - ABC News
__________________
Current project - To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. & To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
05-02-12, 09:42 AM | #2 |
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 5,525
Thanks: 1,162
Thanked 374 Times in 305 Posts
|
Really, no thoughts on this?
__________________
Current project - To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. & To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
05-02-12, 10:31 AM | #3 |
Less usage=Cheaper bills
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 940
Thanks: 41
Thanked 117 Times in 91 Posts
|
I'm happy because we need more nuclear power in this country. I was hesitant to respond because they showed a picture Three Mile Island on the top and the video is basically discussing this in the typical news fashion of trying to scare the public.
I think adding reactors to an existing site is the easiest way to get beyond the NIMBY aspect of adding capacity since there is already nuclear there. Of course there will always be opposition. I live 30 miles as the crow flies from a nuclear plant, doesn't bother me. |
05-02-12, 01:50 PM | #4 |
Master EcoRenovator
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver Island BC
Posts: 745
Thanks: 23
Thanked 37 Times in 30 Posts
|
although I agree nukes are probably necessary I'm worried for the long term future about how cleaning these sites up when they are retired will be handled.
Also having the cooling run for a few days after losing power isn't good enough in my mind. I want any nuke plants to shut down and cool down in the event of failure. I thought they had some newer form of reactor that they had to actively work to keep the reaction going. If the didn't then everything just stopped and you were left with a contained pile or radioactive material that just sat there until you added something to get it going again. |
10-24-12, 08:14 AM | #5 |
Supreme EcoRenovator
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Vancouver Island,Canada.
Posts: 1,037
Thanks: 116
Thanked 100 Times in 87 Posts
|
Having the cooling run for a few days after a disaster is useless at best and shows the lack of built in safety, no wonder these things meltdown, they are designed too.
|
10-24-12, 08:44 AM | #6 |
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 5,525
Thanks: 1,162
Thanked 374 Times in 305 Posts
|
My guess is this is probably at least a good step forward from what we already have running all over the country, kinda scary. I imagine they had to prove quite a few safety protocals and additional safety systems just to get the plant approved.
__________________
Current project - To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. & To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
10-25-12, 10:58 AM | #7 |
Supreme EcoRenovator
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Vancouver Island,Canada.
Posts: 1,037
Thanks: 116
Thanked 100 Times in 87 Posts
|
I suspect these new plants are little changed from the currently used systems. If the designers were to do a large redesign of one it would be admitting that the current plants are unsafe.
I guess i am a cynic.. I am going to read up on the plant and find out.. edit: still looking, but found this- http://www.examiner.com/article/nucl...led-north-anna and this cancer study to be soon released http://www.nctimes.com/blogsnew/busi...6cc5b9293.html Last edited by ecomodded; 10-25-12 at 11:07 AM.. |
10-25-12, 06:15 PM | #8 |
Master EcoRenovator
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 958
Thanks: 40
Thanked 158 Times in 150 Posts
|
Although I would rather not have them, they are a reality. I too am about 30mi from a 4500mw plant, big sucker. The only benefit of the Candu reactors is that in event of a failure, the core drops automatically into the cooling pond and "supposedly" that stops the reaction........
That said, four of my inlaws are engineers in a NUC plant on Lake Huron and a good number of their friends and co-workers have died of radiation related cancers. On a lighter note, 100% of all new commercial power production in the US was from wind and solar in September, 455Mw IIRC. |
10-25-12, 09:56 PM | #9 |
Master EcoRenovator
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver Island BC
Posts: 745
Thanks: 23
Thanked 37 Times in 30 Posts
|
In the event of a serious earthquake if that cooling pond is cracked and drains then that core is going to stop and fall out into a puddle before melting down.
At least toronto isn't known for giant earthquakes. I've also never heard anyone suggest putting one on the west coast in BC. Of course the US has lots of nukes in quake zones... |
10-26-12, 06:26 AM | #10 |
Less usage=Cheaper bills
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 940
Thanks: 41
Thanked 117 Times in 91 Posts
|
You can stop the reaction but the decay will continue to produce plenty of heat and radiation. Fukushima reactors were all stopped but the radiation is still in the surrounding area after the reactor was exposed with the hydrogen explosions.
It's difficult to failsafe containment in earthquake zones but the idea is that both the cooling and containment need to be built as failsafe as possible. ...or we need to make a move to something safer such as a safer reactor such as a molten salt reactor such as LFTR. Here's some good generalized reading. Largely as a response to what ecomodded said. There are changes being made and have been made from previous reactors. Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
|
|