The first new nuclear reactor in the U.S. in nearly three decades is taking shape outside Augusta, Ga. Southern Company has dug up a patch of red clay down to bedrock for the foundation of a new AP-1000—a new generation of reactor with passive safety features that keep working even when the power goes out. Southern plans to build two such AP-1000s in the next six years, and other utilities have plans for 12 more, along with another six new reactors of various designs, all of them with passive safety features.
Safety features that operate in the absence of electricity or human intervention were lacking at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, which was built in the 1970s. The March earthquake knocked out the plant’s connection to the grid, and the subsequent tsunami damaged backup generators and electrical equipment, crippling cooling systems and allowing reactor cores to heat up. Each AP-1000, in contrast, has a giant tank of water that sits above the reactor core. In the event of a potential meltdown, the heat buildup would trigger a valve, allowing the water to flow into the reactor.
The AP-1000 also has an open-sky design that, in a pinch, uses air currents to cool the reactor. In a departure from standard designs, the outer concrete building that encloses the reactor’s primary concrete and steel shell has vents near the roof. In a meltdown, natural convection would pull in air.
Convection would also spread radioactive particles out through the roofline vents, critics point out. Engineers counter that eliminating all risk is impossible; the best they can do is strike an acceptable balance between safety and cost. “With earthquakes, there are limits to what you can do,” says Michael Golay, a nuclear engineer at M.I.T. “What risk are you willing to tolerate?”
This article was originally published with the title The Newest Nuclear Plants.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add Commentanother uranium based plant when thorium is clearly a better, safer alternative?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"another uranium based plant when [theoretically] thorium is clearly a better, safer alternative?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are no NRC certified designs. Such reactors are still in the design phases. Then there will be validation, prototype, review, certification, etc. I hope it gets going some time.
... and we need more. Problem is we spent all our money on useless wars and wasteful spending, exporting jobs to China, blah, blah. The Government needs to reconsider Nevada as a storage facility. Take politics out and do it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"another uranium based plant when thorium is clearly a better, safer alternative?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously. Thorium is everywhere, and liquid fuels are inherently safer because they can passively drain into contained storage tanks deep underground in case of a failure. Another great benefit with thorium fuels is the much shorter nuclear waste half life.
Sadly, it looks like we are going to let this beneficial technology slip by and continue to build uranium reactors.
We stopped building Nuclear power plants 30 years ago... NOT because of safety, but because we STILL have NO solution for the radioactive waste.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYucca Mountain is a joke. Factor in the cost of shipping millions of pounds of nuclear waste thousands of miles... escorted by US Military forces, and you multiply the cost by 10 X. The TRUE cost of this 'cheap' energy source is *probably* $1.70/KWh; but we really don't know yet.
Fix the waste issue... or at least factor in the cost to the discussion... and then we can begin to talk about Nuclear energy.
All the worlds nuclear waste now perfectly contained would fill 1% the volume of the Great Pyramid at Giza which has lasted 5000 years - less than a football field buried 40 feet deep. Not waste. It is fuel enough to power the world for hundreds of years while being destroyed in gen IV reactors like India's new 500 MW first of 5 units. Ironically that is the only way to get rid of it. The tiny amount left is such a low level it can be returned to the mine shaft.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow. the Pyrimids are a GREAT analogy... They were looted shortly after they were ment to contain their contents for *eternity*. And what's the half life of Plutonium? ~ 24 thousand years??? Yucca cant seem to survive more than a few Presidential administrations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease reveiw the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act
Nuclear waste, some of which remains dangerously radioactive with a half-life of more than one million years...
The Act authorized DOE to provide up to 1,900 metric tons of temporary storage capacity for spent fuel from civilian nuclear reactors...Costs of temporary storage would be paid by fees collected from electric utilities using the storage.
The problem is how to keep radioactive waste in storage until it decays after hundreds of thousands of years. The [geologic] deposit must be absolutely reliable as the quantities of poison are tremendous. It is very difficult to satisfy these requirements for the simple reason that we have had no practical experience with such a long term project. Moreover permanently guarded storage requires a society with unprecedented stability.”[17]
This is a shame. sad to say, those with the money will determine our grandchildren's future. They make so many intelligent decisions nowadays huh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn another note, there are certain groups in several states trying to get solar on the rooftops of the low income, senior and disabled citizens. The people they assist will very soon see $0 cost for a monthly power bill. The more people that have the additional income from low or $0 power bills, the more there is to spend on other needed items (health care? education?).
All costs associated with building and operating the waste repository, and shipping the spent fuel, are fully covered by the nuclear industry, through a fee of (only) 0.1 cents/kW-hr that is paid to the govt. Every year the govt. audits the program to ensure that the fee remains adequate. Thus, all costs associated with handling and disposing of nuclear waste are already included in nuclear's price.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the scientific/technical problem of nuclear waste. The NRC had completed its review of Yucca Mountain and found that it meets all the (ridiculously strict) requirements by a wide margin. Then the release of the review's findings was surpressed by Obama and Harry Reid for purely political reasons. The issue is now in court, and the repository will probably go forward someday.
Scientific analysis clearly shows that the waste will be contained for over a million years (i.e., long after it ceases to be hazardous). We can not make such a claim for any of our other waste streams, actually. Of all our waste streams, nuclear waste actually represents one of the lowest very long term risks. The nuclear waste issue is technologically solved. It's a purely political problem.
Until we get our political act together, we will simply store the waste, safely and harmlessly, like we've been doing for the last 40+ years.
Ok. That's reasonable. In 40 more years there will be no more war, no more terrorists, no more Democrats. Gotcha ;o).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can you say with any seriousness that we can 'contain' anything for 3 to 10 time the sum of written human history? How can you posibly know the minds of your great ^10 grand children?
Ok. so let's talk about decomissioning nuclear plants. Correct me as needed. 1) Only a handfull of plants have been decommed... at a cost of almost a billion each. How many of the US plants are due for decom in the next decade? Well, 4 decades? (when all the terrorists are dead).
In a few decades the USA will notice that the most of the rest of the world has gone nuclear (and largely fossil fuel free).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike China, India,Argentina , and France (which did so years ago)
Will you be playing these stupid political games?
The only difference between nuclear waste and coal waste is that the coal waste has such a large volume that it produces significantly more radiation and can be used in concrete and fertilizer for food crops.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA Power Station dsigned around Gravity Control is the safest and most economical way to produce power. Let us know if any other system can beat 1 cent or less per Kilowatt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe trouble with using statistics to evaluate risks is that in reality it is the mathematics of chaos theory that should used. Chaos theory by definition cannot predict freak events. Therefore such dangerous plant as Nuclear Power stations should be fail-safe, idiot-proof and designed in respect to Murphey's law...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quality of the nuclear debate seems to be improving. Four days since your post yet no hysterical condemnation. The other pro nuclear posts also have only attracted mild reproach. There is hope.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as GA is drowning in money, it should be all right. If they want inexpensive power at 1 cent per Kilowatt or less, then they should opt for the Canadian invention of Gravity Control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA Power Station (it can be Micro, Mega or Giga Size) can be built in a few months.
A few electricians will keep it operating.
Look at the origin at < One Terminal Capacitor Joseph Hiddink>
The waste problem seems to be a financial and political problem while in reality it is a scientific and religious one. If the "natural" diminution of radioactivity can be reduced to a half life of hours in a second reactor there will be no radioactive waste at all.This should be done by the real science of nature,not by relativity or quantum science but by a serious study of the atom,beginning with the understanding of atomic spectra and,by the way,understanding why the LHC will not work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this