US has approved 2 new nuclear power plants

Daox · 04-30-12, 12:08 PM

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

Daox · 05-02-12, 09:42 AM

Really, no thoughts on this?

MN Renovator · 05-02-12, 10:31 AM

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.

strider3700 · 05-02-12, 01:50 PM

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.

ecomodded · 10-24-12, 08:14 AM

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.

Daox · 10-24-12, 08:44 AM

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.

ecomodded · 10-25-12, 10:58 AM

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

Mikesolar · 10-25-12, 06:15 PM

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.

strider3700 · 10-25-12, 09:56 PM

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...

MN Renovator · 10-26-12, 06:26 AM

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

04-30-12, 12:08 PM	#1
Daox 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
Daox 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.

10-24-12, 08:44 AM	#6
Daox 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
ecomodded 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..

05-02-12, 10:31 AM	#3
MN Renovator Less usage=Cheaper bills Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 939 Thanks: 41 Thanked 116 Times in 90 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
strider3700 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
ecomodded 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.

10-25-12, 06:15 PM	#8
Mikesolar 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
strider3700 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
MN Renovator Less usage=Cheaper bills Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 939 Thanks: 41 Thanked 116 Times in 90 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