NEW NUCLEAR: Four new reactors, including two at the Vogtle nuclear power plant near Savannah, Ga., pictured here last August, are being built in the U.S. today--all of them of the new AP-1000 design.
Image: © 2010 Southern Company
More In This Article
Listen to this Podcast
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The first new nuclear reactor ordered in the U.S. in roughly three decades is beginning to take shape in the red clay near Augusta, Ga. Southern Co. and its partners have dug 27.5 meters down into that soil to reach bedrock and are now filling up the hole to provide a stable foundation for what is likely to be the first of a new generation of reactors in the U.S.: two new AP-1000 models at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant that stand next to two older pressurized water reactors, which came online in the 1980s.
"The nuclear revival is underway in Georgia," says Jim Miller, chief executive of Southern Nuclear Operating Co., the subsidiary charged with administering the corporation's nuclear power plants. "It will provide safe, clean, reliable, low-cost electric energy to our customers for generations to come."
In addition to charging its current customers $3.73 a month for the construction of this reactor until costs are recovered Southern received an $8.3-billion loan guarantee from the federal government to help make up the cost difference compared with building a natural gas–fired turbine, for example. The total cost of the two new reactors is expected to be $14 billion in the end, Miller says.
And Southern is not the only corporation in the U.S. expanding its nuclear portfolio. Energy company SCANA subsidiary South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (SCE&G) plans to add two AP-1000 reactors to its nuclear power plant near Jenkinsville, S.C., by 2016 and 2019, whereas the Tennessee Valley Authority will finally complete Watts Bar Unit 2 near Chattanooga, Tenn.—more than 30 years after construction began, including a nearly two-decade hiatus—next year.
There are also applications for at least 20 other reactors under scrutiny at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)—the government agency charged with monitoring the nation's reactors—including final approval of the AP-1000 design.
But that doesn't mean its boom time for the U.S. nuclear industry. In October Constellation Energy pulled out of a bid to build a new reactor at Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, among other U.S. nuclear projects that have recently been dropped or delayed.
"In the near term we will not see large-scale construction like in the 1970s and 1980s when we had 40 [nuclear power] plants coming online in a decade. Our electrified economy does not require that at this time," says Marvin Fertel, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group for the nuclear industry. "There will be a lot of plants between now and 2050, just not a lot between now and 2020." Similarly, a variety of nuclear reactor project plans have been shelved, such as plans to build a new reactor at a new site in Victoria, Texas, largely due to falling natural gas prices that make nuclear reactors uncompetitive economically compared to gas-burning turbines.
So, if the trend falls short of a true U.S. nuclear renaissance—given that it is starting with so few reactors and is regionally confined—it is still a new beginning for a sometimes controversial electricity source, one that could make a contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
On the plus side, for instance, the U.S. is benefiting from a true nuclear boom abroad, with at least 60 reactors under construction worldwide; Southern and SCANA have picked up engineering and construction practices from the ongoing rapid construction of four AP-1000 reactors in China over the past two years, for example. Both companies are assembling massive sheds next to their reactor foundations for assembly of the various forgings. That is so the reactor modules can be assembled upright and indoors. "They built them horizontal and uprighted[sic] them," explains Steve Byrne, executive vice president of generation at SCE&G. "That put a lot of stress and strain on the bolts."
And Southern is also benefiting from growth overseas in buying its nuclear forgings from a facility in Dusan, South Korea, a site that did not exist a few years ago when only one place in the world—Japan Steel Works in Hokkaido—was producing such massive steel forgings. "It takes three to four years from first iron to arriving on site," Byrne says.
As for fuel, there are now new made-in-America options. For the first time in decades a new uranium rod fabrication plant is operating in New Mexico and it may soon be joined by as many as three others in the U.S. That's because 2013 will see the expiration of an agreement with Russia that allows the U.S. to blend down the highly enriched uranium from decommissioned Russian nuclear warheads into the lower level enriched fuel used in U.S. nuclear reactors—a program known as "Megatons to Megawatts" that currently provides as much as 50 percent of U.S. nuclear fuel.
At the same time, the U.S. still lacks a long-term solution for nuclear waste due to the cancellation of a disposal facility being built at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, although President Obama has appointed a blue-ribbon commission to make recommendations. In the interim—which could stretch for a century—used fuel rods will remain where they are: at nuclear power plants themselves either in spent fuel pools or in giant concrete casks on pads.
Meanwhile, the NRC is certifying the safety of the AP-1000 design and is expected to issue a license to the additional Vogtle reactors in Georgia "later this year," Miller says, although concerns continue to be raised at public hearings by opponents. If the license is issued, the first new design reactor in the U.S. in decades would start delivering 1,100 megawatts of power by 2016.
Ultimately, what's driving both Southern and SCANA to build reactors is a combination of increasing federal and local regulations on fossil fuel–fired power generation, particularly coal-fired plants; the possibility of more stringent emissions regulations, including CO2 emissions, within the next several decades; and a desire for a diversity of electricity generation options, according to Miller and Byrne.
"If you look at nuclear over a 40- to 60-year life, it becomes desirable," Fertel says. "Many of today's reactors will be producing electricity well past 2030 and a reactor that starts producing in 2016 will end its 60-year life in 2076. It's a hedge against future [emissions] regulations and a hedge against fossil-fuel prices almost until the end of this century."
See what we're tweeting about
59 Comments
Add CommentJust like the Great Wall of China, we will now be able to see the U.S. and its people from space and distinguish it from other countries and peoples by our nice green glow. All terrorists and home grown terrorists have to do now is make themselves one of em air dirty bombs from all that radioactive waste material and drop it down one of em air smoke stacks...just like Santa would do coming down the dark hole to all of those little children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere are we going to get all that money to buy nuclear fuel and all that money to build all those nuclear reactors and how are we ever go to pay it back. My grandchildren, fifth removed, will be paying for this overspending and big government takeover. We are going to be paying out welfare incentives to all those nuclear reactors, just like we are having to do for General Motors, for the rest of our lives and our electric bills are going to triple. ...there goes little Sarah's new Easter outfit.
... and it cannot come too soon enough. Nuclear is a viable option that should be exercised ASAP - the reasons too numerous to list.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamesDavis: It must have taken a lot of pedaling on your home bike/generator to power your computer and network to write your comment. Where are you expecting to get your electricity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour paragraph one obscure diatribe aside, in your paragraph two, you assume economics that are incorrect. The plant's ROI is worked out long before construction starts, and is more stable for this power type as fuel costs are up front and known.
Good article, and encouraging news. It might have been worth noting that those loan guarantees would not be needed if the regulatory landscape for nuclear energy were not based on extraordinary, and some say needlessly complex, concerns regarding safety; concerns that should be greatly ameliorated, as would be the amount of high level waste that is currently created by the systems now mandated by the regulations that were created back during the birth of commercial nuclear power, were the next generation of liquid fuel power plants being implimented, as they are expected to do in the not too distant future, a subject worth an article of itsown, and one we hope to see in the near future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamesDavis,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't believe that you are so ill educated on such matters as this subject you feel to comment so strongly on nonetheless.
You mention that "we will now be able to see the U.S. and its people from space and distinguish it from other countries and peoples by our nice green glow" - I'm sure you are using the phrase "seen from space" just to get your point across, but, on commenting about America's green glow. Look at the numerous countries that have nuclear power plants, they obviously don't glow green as you are aware.
You are suggesting that all terrorists, native or not, would be able to make a dirty bomb from radioactive waste then drop it down one "of em air smoke stacks". Firstly if they are able to get their hands on nuclear waste - which would be hard enough and I certainly would not like to go any where near - they would be able to make a dirty bomb? and also release it in a chimney? Is going to be very hard. And then to mention about Santa to call to our inner child and emotional state if we have children? If we don't create new power plants your children are going to have a hugely different lives to the ones we live. Or if we continue to use dirty fossil fuels and destroy our nature habitat to feed our greed, e.g. Canadian Oil sands, one of the dirtiest forms of oil that we desire.
On mentioning money, nuclear power is a great plan for the future. The world is in a precarious situation at the moment environmentally and economically, but the economic crisis is official over, and we need to support out expanding population - which is still growing exponentially- we need a plan and this is a great option with the cards we hold on our hands. Do you have any better suggestions? Please contact me with a reply, I would love to know about them and further discuss their potential.
As 2000 characters or so is not nearly enough to emphasis what you comment has made me feel about what lack of knowledge on this matter you possess. I urge you to read upon this subject more and understand that we really don't have many options left in our finite world, supporting a population that thinks the Earth behold infinite abundance. I would like to finish on the same note you have with your comment, but on the subject if we don't change the way we act and generate power.
...there goes little Sarah's secure future.
I just don't understand; nuclear only becomes desirable when you look at a 40-60 year life, a $45/yr mandated burden on each customer, and a potential $8 billion subsidy on a $14 billion project? (lets not add the taxpayer insurance underwriting, or the fact that everyone's electric bill rises immensely when ever a reactor goes online, or tax incentives extended for investment).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile on the other hand, when oil was $9/barrel they said solar PV would not be cost effective until oil reached $27/barrel. Now solar PV efficiencies have risen from 12-16% to 20-24%, and oil is $85/barrel.
PV cells will last 40 years or longer with out anywhere near the cost of maintenance updates, and upgrades to a nuclear facility. And nuclear plants are only supposed to have a life of 20 years with a possible 20yr extension if basically rebuilt.
Of course you can charge people and have customers with a centralized distribution scheme, while solar permits those same consumers to be producers. Where's the business model in that?!? Who would be foolish enough to subsidize solar and nuclear equally, while penalizing (taxing) fossil fuels? That would be down right anti-establishment, and empower individuals. It would stop small (I mean "micro") business from being reliant on corporate behemoths that would never put public health or social needs or environmental devastation above maximized profiteering!
Well, there is another option, you can tell people that centralized, corporatized concentrated solar is better than PV, and still produce that prized business model that will put the masses in the shackles of necessity. Heck, you can even charge customers more for that shiny new big solar plant far off in another state because you supposedly are conscious of their so called concerns.
If PV pannels could be joined water tight, thus eliminating the need for shingles (oil based), tar paper undelayment (oil based) and built up or rubber roofing (both oil based) and those associated costs, we would be far better subsidizing solar on every roof top than forcing our society to spend a trillion/yr subsidizing the internal and external costs of oil. (We don't burn all that imported oil... 50% of our consumption goes into manufacturing -macadam roads, roof tops, plastics, tires, etc.; and the byproducts like benzine are shipped to the refineries and added to our gas, telling us it is a natural byproduct).
Wow. How did you make your own solar panels? They still must have taken some manufactured products, what with the PVC tubing for the hot water and the heat pump connected to your generator. I've heard wrapping the windings on a decent size generator can be quite tiring and time consuming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou really can make your own (poor efficiency) PV solar electric cells. While I assume you were being sarcastic; a quick search on homemade solar cells is interesting to anyone who isn't indentured to the nuclear or fossil fuel industries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd why isn't there any financial allowance for de-commissioning and estimated spent fuel disposal (or at least packing and transportation costs) included with those ROI or ROA cost benefit analyzes?
It really can be argued that nuclear is not cost effective, especially when the regulatory over site is de-fanged as in the Bush years when a nuclear reactor vessel in Toledo had rusted through to paper thin steel in an area as large as a man's fist! (and that reactor was getting agency approval to extend operating times beyond required shutdowns)
I stand corrected!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSigmaEyes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you document what nuclear regulation was de-fanged by Bush.
The loan guarantees cover 80% of the cost so Vogtle is $10B or $4.5B/GW - the other $4B is for transmission upgrades. Biello is a cub reporter that has no idea how to do basic research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe identical VC Summer project is $9.8B or $4.5B/GW.
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2011/01/31/new-nuclear-construction-v-c-summer-2-3/
Both projects are about the same capital cost of new pollution compliant coal and while having much higher capital cost are the same levelized cost per kwh of gas even with dirt cheap gas sure to double in price over the next few years. Utility execs love the cheap gas plant because it keeps up the quarterly bonus's while at the same time the massive future cost increases from gas price inflation get passed to the ratepayer without question.
Nuclear power is 1% the cost of wind/solar/gas energy scam when green long term storage replaces wind/solar/gas strategy which gets 80% of its energy from low efficiency MG plant burning filthy dirty, stinking,deadly particulate,GHG, NOX and radioactive radon gas spewing natural gas killing thousands of citizens annually. Less gas less GHG's less pollution by using efficient CCGT gas plant and skipping the wind/solar altogether.
Because of flighty US regulation out of touch with OECD standards, US nuke costs are 3 times that of the exact same plant in China.
Repug energy leader Upton has announced he will be eliminating the current absurd 6 years process to get a site permit to add an approved nuke identical to many other operating units to an existing nuke plant or replace a filthy coal plant with an already approved nuke, cutting US nuke costs to Asian levels.
If the 80% clean energy bill gets passed nukes win since it is the only cost effective clean energy solution.
AECL and Westinghouse are predicting 1 cents a kwh costs and 3 year build times. China is now building reactors for #1.5B/Gw and that is dropping fast towards the $1B/Gw predicted.
Google "china-leverages-learning-curve-cost"
Greenie Deniers don't believe the real science that tells us we only have ten maybe 15 years left to solve the AGW/Peak Oil problem. Their junk science religion allows them to bet their never never land silly dreams of breezes and sunbeams against the certain death of millions from air pollution every year they can delay the fossil to nuclear conversion and the death of billions as they risk the end of civilization in a peak oil/climate holocaust that only nukes can prevent in time.
Perhaps a special Denier Darwin award with a little green medal for them?
As someone who has worked in the US electrical energy sector for over 20 years, my biggest concern is the vast knowledge gap in the public and the press and academia regarding where their (cheap) electric power comes from and what the real world problems are in producing it. This is especialy true when it comes to nuclear power. For a realistic portrait of the day to day operation of this generation of US nuclear plants, written by a longtime insider, see "Rad Decision: A Novel of Nuclear Power". The book is written as a thriller to avoid reader boredom - and that seems to be working, judging from the comments I've received at the website. It is not a polemic - every power source has its good and bad points, after all, and there's no "right answer," just a series of tradeoffs. Instead of listening only to executives, spokesmen, and those peering in from the outside, why not see what someone in the bowels of the atomic fun industry has to say? The book is free online, and is also in paperback. Go to http://RadDecision.blogspot.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'd like to see Rad Decision widely read" - STEWART BRAND, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog.
“I got to about page four and I was hooked, I couldn’t put it down… It was very easy to read, the characters were well described, and they were vibrant.” - DAVID LEVY, noted science author and Parade Magazine contributor.
"...a gripping thriller" - MARK STEVENSON, in the acknowledgements of "An Optimist's Tour of the Future"
Many more reviews in the homepage comments.
Mr. Davis, your government has been building reactors at a break neck pace they have just not been used for commercial power production. Underneath the sea and floating atop with planes aboard the US Navy runs reactors day in and day out safely and reliably which is why you don't hear too much about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJudging from your political stance you are a Regan man, thanks to him Westinghouse has a leading edge on Nuclear Tech, Engineered in the U.S.A.. Or, shall we just buy oil from the Saudi's, Solar Panels from the Chinese or Gas Turbines from the Japanese? Maybe that is a better solution in your eyes... Spare us the big government take over bit already this is infrastructure investment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar is simply not relevant in this debate - it is a peak energy source not a baseload energy source. Solar may last 40 years longer - it has to in order to produce any tangible amount of energy. 14MW here, 12MW there, during optimum production periods is not going to replace the 1,000's of MWs produced day in and day out by Coal, Nuclear, oil, NGs, etc..
The solar argument seems to be based on the "if we" "if they" the nuclear angle is ready right now. It is being put up in China, Japan, France, these plants are running, producing power safely and reliably. In the case of France they are exporting to Germany to cover the German shortfall - wait, Germany voted to extend their Reactors permits because the solar revival they had there is not covering base load needs.
The PROBLEM is that long term storage costs for monitoring, moving and protection...makes nuclear NOT cost effective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou need to get better information about solar products. My sister installed solar on the roof for hot water in the 1960's, it still provides free very hot water all year long. They have added more panels for heating the house. (It's electric) They are very happy and encourage other people to get them. I keep talking to our condo members...maybe they will vote on it. It's the looks they don't like.
Solar in the total long run is very cost effective.
ASAP - the reasons too numerous to list.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are they? Since they are too NUMEROUS.
It's not safe or cheap for the total long term cost.
List them if you can. Thanks
ASAP - the reasons too numerous to list.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are they? Since they are too NUMEROUS.
It's not safe or cheap for the total long term cost.
List them if you can. Thanks
Commenters #1 and #7 are trying to imply that nuclear is more expensive than solar PV. This is ridiculously off base. Even before additional costs associated with intermittentcy are factored in, the per kW-hr cost of solar PV is several times higher that of nuclear:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html
They also refer to "spending" $8 billion to subsidize a nuclear plant, as though a loan guarantee and a direct cash subsidy are even remotely the same thing. All the govt. is doing is "co-signing" on an $8 billion loan in order to bring the interest down a bit. By contrast, the only reason people are installing solar panels is that the govt. (state and federal) is literally paying for most of the cost. Nuclear subsidies are negligible compared to those that renewables get, solar especially.
The costs of waste management and disposal, and plant decommissioning ARE fully included in all nuclear project costs. The law requires that all such costs be fully paid by the utility. Thus, the price of nuclear electricity (charged to the user) fully reflects those costs. The nuclear per kW-hr costs given in my link above fully include all such costs. The cost of solar cell disposal is probably not included in the listed solar PV cost.
Nuclear plants were given an arbitrary initial life span of 40 years (that had no technical basis). They are all going to run for at least 60 (probably 100) years, with only minor component replacement costs. New plants have a design life of (at least) 60 years.
As for terrorist threats, nuclear plants have always been extremely poor targets. Unprotected chemical plants make a much better target, with respect to potential consequences as well as chance of success. As for dirty bombs, relatively unsecured medical radiation sources (at hospitals) will always be a much greater risk than any nuclear materials at nuclear power plants.
Despite all these dreamed up "threats", the record could not be more clear. Fossil fuel plants have been causing 25,000 deaths per year in the US alone. US nuclear plants have not resulted in any deaths at all, over their entire 40+ year history of operation.
Great article. We covered pretty much the same on Powering a Nation/Nuclear Properties, juxtaposing the "Renaissance" lead by Plant Vogtle to the retirement of Vermont Yankee (and many other reactors to come in the next 20 years).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor sure, developing countries are making great strides to invest in this source of energy, and the U.S. will find itself trailing in the energy market unless it significantly diversifies its portfolio.
Luca Semprini
www.poweringanation.org
Okay, Oldbloke, thems fightin' wordz!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile Jdavis may indeed be a 'demented, ignorant, American', please don't imply that we all are. I've met a few 'demented, ignorant,Ozzies', but I still admire your country and most of your people.
well done fellows. Finally the US has surrender, again, to the nuclear conglomerate. Not a good example for the rest of the world. So it is OK to charge customers in advance for a thermonuclear plant than can very well follow the steps of Shoreham in Long Island NY. At the same time if you use federal money for wind power the nuclear industry cries theat you are subsidizing. Any idea about how much nuclear electricity will cost?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYup 2 cents a kwh just like today. Shoreham was caused by greedy greenies working for Big Coal. We are wise to them now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreetings Postman,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually I live in New Zealand, it's off the coast of Australia.
I understand that not all of you are like JamesDavis.
That would be awful.
Wow, there are bucketloads of total BS on this thread, as usual for anything to do with nuclear. The truth is at neither extreme. Industry 'cost' estimates for nuclear power ignore many important factors. Opponents generally overemphasize the potential issues as well. I have to say though the total utter bunk on this thread in respect to renewables SPV/Wind is pretty thick. Hint, nobody will take you seriously when you have such utterly defective information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSPV is inarguably not yet at parity with coal's non-internalized costs. It is well ahead of coal if you do internalize the costs, and the comparison with wind isn't even a contest. It is harder to tell with nuclear. Honestly I suspect nuclear power will go by the wayside in a decade or so, but in the meantime it simply isn't worth fighting over and nobody has a monopoly on knowing the future.
Oh, and Wind IS baseload power, sorry. The East Coast can quite cost effectively power itself 100% of the time from wind simply by spreading the turbines out along the coast sufficiently. There is simply no time period when enough wind isn't blowing along enough of the coast to do the job. The 'non-baseload' argument is a myth.
Beyond that a LOT of the power we use now doesn't have to be baseload power.
Oh, and I know ALL about Vermont Yankee. Why don't any of you fans of the place go take a look at what's going on there? They have leaks left and right. Entergy has fudged so much on the decomissioning fund it isn't even funny. Decommissioning costs are also higher than what is reported. Lots of problems. Can be dealt with, but it isn't the panacea people think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPositron (anti-matter) fuel can replace Nuclear fuel now!!!
America can have clean energy and supply the entire world with energy, completely eliminating fossil fuel use thus saving the planet, how is possible you ask? A few scientist now know that Positrons are being coughed out of large high altitude thunderstorms, the lighting creates an effect like that of the LHC only on much greater scale. Positrons produced in mass quantity everyday that ride up the electromagnetic field and into outer space, called Blue Jets they stream in a row and can easily be collected by a network of satellites that circle the globe. The energy which can be collected, contained and safely stored using current technology , without radiation and no radioactive waste to store, simple the best alternative for energy and mankind.
The cost for starting up the entire program including anti-matter collection, power plants and distribution of electricity for the entire United States would be less than the cost of one Nuclear Power planet. The amount of power produced by positrons could be considered by physics as the cleanest most powerful fuel in the Universe.
On December 14, 2009 Nasa's Fermi satellite was flying over Egypt, the spacecraft intercepted a particle beam from a terrestrial gamma-ray flash which occurred over it's horizon. Fermi's Gamma-ray burst monitor detected the signal of positrons annihilating on the spacecraft, twice, some of the particles reflected off a magnetic mirror point and returned (positrons will collect themselves in what is called Flocking). Studies of lighting storms using high-speed cameras reveal a whole world of activity in the upper atmosphere that no one expected, anti-matter particles created high above ordinary storm clouds by bolts of lightings. These Terrestrial Gamma-ray flashes send beams of anti-matter arcing through the Earth's atmosphere in thunderstorms as high as 100 kilometers and are sometimes referred to as Blue Jets. It is now believed that as many as 500 or more Gamma-ray flashes happen everyday with thunderstorms coughing Positrons (anti-electrons) up the Earth's magnetic field.
This is not a theory, it is fact, the uses for Positron fuel in space craft would make us equal with Aliens and allow space travel beyond our solar system. Give me your thoughts, challenge me and my beliefs if you dare or support me.
Really? How’s that working out?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you tell us your capacity factor? Lawrence Berkeley National Labs found average capacity factor for PV in prime sites is ~15%.
The conversion efficiency? For thin-film, usually about 10%
What do you use at night? Clouds? Winter?
Did you install the inverters and cables yourself? Who repairs them?
How often to you have to get up there and wash off the dust, leaves, and snow?
Please be careful, because according to the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission, about 165,000 Americans require medical treatment for ladder-related injuries each year.
One thing is for sure - you are about a million times more likely to get hurt byinstalling/cleaning/maintaining your solar panels and inverters than you ever are from anything related to a nuclear power plant.
“Building nuclear reactors could be a disaster in the event of an asteroid collision”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStewie - That’s why you will note that all the nuclear construction workers are wearing hardhats! (In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that nuclear plants average 0.34 accidents per 200,000 worker hours versus 2.3 accidents for all U.S. industry)
Where are all of the scientists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPositron (anti-matter) fuel can replace Nuclear fuel now!!!
America can have clean energy and supply the entire world with energy, completely eliminating fossil fuel use thus saving the planet, how is possible you ask? A few scientist now know that Positrons are being coughed out of large high altitude thunderstorms, the lighting creates an effect like that of the LHC only on much greater scale. Positrons produced in mass quantity everyday that ride up the electromagnetic field and into outer space, called Blue Jets they stream in a row and can easily be collected by a network of satellites that circle the globe. The energy which can be collected, contained and safely stored using current technology , without radiation and no radioactive waste to store, simple the best alternative for energy and mankind.
The cost for starting up the entire program including anti-matter collection, power plants and distribution of electricity for the entire United States would be less than the cost of one Nuclear Power planet. The amount of power produced by positrons could be considered by physics as the cleanest most powerful fuel in the Universe.
On December 14, 2009 Nasa's Fermi satellite was flying over Egypt, the spacecraft intercepted a particle beam from a terrestrial gamma-ray flash which occurred over it's horizon. Fermi's Gamma-ray burst monitor detected the signal of positrons annihilating on the spacecraft, twice, some of the particles reflected off a magnetic mirror point and returned (positrons will collect themselves in what is called Flocking). Studies of lighting storms using high-speed cameras reveal a whole world of activity in the upper atmosphere that no one expected, anti-matter particles created high above ordinary storm clouds by bolts of lightings. These Terrestrial Gamma-ray flashes send beams of anti-matter arcing through the Earth's atmosphere in thunderstorms as high as 100 kilometers and are sometimes referred to as Blue Jets. It is now believed that as many as 500 or more Gamma-ray flashes happen everyday with thunderstorms coughing Positrons (anti-electrons) up the Earth's magnetic field.
This is not a theory, it is fact, the uses for Positron fuel in space craft would make us equal with Aliens and allow space travel beyond our solar system. Give me your thoughts, challenge me and my beliefs if you dare or support me.
More gas from Tharter. You need to get that under control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" Oh, and Wind IS baseload power, sorry. The East Coast can quite cost effectively power itself 100% of the time from wind simply by spreading the turbines out along the coast sufficiently."
Well actually most summers there is a period of two weeks or so when there is almost no wind at all on the entire Atlantic coast. What do we do then? Well not what Europe and Texas did last month when there was no wind for most of a cold spell - freeze in the dark. Be a lot better if we can all go and sit on the beach for two weeks and let the freezer melt.
"Vermont Yankee."
The decommissioning funds are administered by the NRC and you can buy a watch fob on Ebay which has more tritium than the total leaked. Love to shut er down though and let the stupid saps that voted for Shuman freeze in the dark running on green wind power at 20 times the cost of the plant - no gas or coal allowed.
"Well actually most summers there is a period of two weeks or so when there is almost no wind at all on the entire Atlantic coast. What do we do then? Well not what Europe and Texas did last month when there was no wind for most of a cold spell - freeze in the dark. Be a lot better if we can all go and sit on the beach for two weeks and let the freezer melt."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, you have no clue. Read the NOAA report on the subject before you spout mis-information please. This is simply incorrect.
"Vermont Yankee."
"The decommissioning funds are administered by the NRC and you can buy a watch fob on Ebay which has more tritium than the total leaked. Love to shut er down though and let the stupid saps that voted for Shuman freeze in the dark running on green wind power at 20 times the cost of the plant - no gas or coal allowed."
Nonsense. The decommissioning funds for VT Yankee are drastically insufficient. Entergy has neglected to completely fund it and etc. I don't know where you get your mythical misinformation from but we here in VT most assuredly know about decommissioning and how it really (fails) to work correctly as these programs are now structured.
Entergy has played every shifty game in the book with VT Yankee. Now, Entergy isn't nuclear power, but a word to the wise would be to be very very careful about who you allow to run your nuclear power plants, they aren't all just nice upstanding people. As for the amount of tritium leaked you are so utterly drastically wrong it isn't even funny. In point of fact the amount of tritium released is a very large unknown. There are multiple leaks, questionable monitoring etc. While I suspect that the end result isn't a big catastrophe your astounding willingness to simply dismiss serious issues with totally erroneous 'facts' tells us all we need to know about your opinions Seth. Heck you should apply for a job at Entergy, you'd fit right in.
My apologies, sir, for guessing you were an Aussie. Would love to visit your Island Paradise someday. It's on my short list. PS: I couldn't stand it here myself if there were many more like JD.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...we here in VT most assuredly know about decommissioning and how it really (fails) to work correctly as these programs are now structured. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHogwash, you in Vermont have no clue as usual. Those of us who remember the decommissioning of Maine Yankee know a thing or two about it. Oddly enough power rates in Maine went through the ceiling after the plant was shuttered because CMP / Bangor Hydro, etc. had to import energy to supply - what is that term again? Ah, base load that's the one. Meanwhile Wyman Station on the scenic coast of Maine is steaming away using oil, brought into Casco Bay on barges. As oil goes up how do you think that will work not to mention the real possibility of a disaster. Solar is not an option, a totally unrealistic replacement for the base energy required at places like, say hospitals. Wind power again does not produce the amount of juice required for base. Now tell me this, once we start building high speed trains and plugging in our cars - what do you think that will do to the base load requirements. Do you figure they will stay flat or go down? Do you think your train can reliably run on windmills off Cape Cod? Just open your eyes look to Japan and France, China, all these places with massive public transit systems, they do not run on wind power.
I might add, last I heard they are looking to put Condo's where Maine Yankee once stood. So as for decommissioning failing you sir are dead wrong, the only place you are right is that the funds are not sufficient because you will have increased electricity rates but that hurts you not the power company. Naturally someone in landlocked Vermont is all for putting pinwheels up along the cost, all over the cost to try and replace 1000s of MWs with 10's of MWs.
The big misunderstanding of the tritium leaks is that they are contained to the VT Yankee sampling wells. Those wells were built to specifically show if there is a problem or not - so in a sense they were doing their jobs. The NRC has reprimanded management, and the NRC is watching the situation like a hawk. The nuclear industry is one of if not the most highly regulated industry and this tritium situation shows if nothing else that the system(s) (policies and procedures) work.
Granted nuclear has demonstrated a low mortality incidence. But in risk management you look at the potential risks/hazards, the probability of realizing those risks, and the consequence if realized.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the "consequence" in that equation that makes nuclear so risky, there is not an insurance company on the face of planet Earth that will insure a commercial nuclear power plant at needed levels.
No commercial power plant would have been built in the USA, because of this fact, if it were not for government subsidized insurance. So we insured the first. And eventually built as many as 40 per year.
So now let's consider the taxpayers exposure in the event that a reactor vessel rusts through (Toledo). Or a nuclear war destroys multiple reactors at multiple sites, or that asteroid theory an earlier commenter made, or that mysterious and notorious terrorist, or just plain old human behavior like not enforcing regulations, or not following procedures like Chernobyl. Should the taxpayer be at risk for 160 nuclear sites? 260? more? How much exposure is too much?
Let's say that the back of the envelope calculations put the installation cost of solar PV at 4 time the installation watt for nuclear (that's assuming the panels only produce 5 hrs per day). But operating costs over the next 40 years tremendously favor solar PV. Now when you add this insurance/risk analysis, solar PV can certainly make nuclear a questionable decision from a societal perspective. From a corporate business model, nuclear wins hands down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorporations profit from charging customers during construction to cover construction costs, then huge rate increases when the plant goes online to cover capital investment in the equipment used in construction, then periodic rate increases that seem to mirror oil prices, then you can charge customers all over again to decommission the plant, and all the while just let the poisonous radioactive waste pile up on site - not even transportation costs involved there! So lets keep that poisonous waste where 70% of the population lives! That make CENTs, doesn't it?
The "base-load" argument was already questioned by Sci Am in an earlier article. But allow me my own input. I calculated the cost of converting the US electricity to solar PV when panels were about $1,000 for 200 -220 watts. It just can't be done. We could not afford to add solar fast enough because you have to factor in the incideous increase in demand (I would not have believed this, until I actually did the math). The best we could hope for is to maintain/replace existing nuclear, and perhaps build several more (which covers the so called "base-load" argument), while trying to match solar implementation to demand increases. (I did not figure in additional demand if electric cars become typical) But for that level of solar implementation to happen, we would have to have significant technology leaps that come with increasing demand for solar arrays, and/or an estimated ten fold increase in subsidies.
As solar PV has ramped up, we have seen the potential for technology leaps beginning to take shape. The technology leaps in nuclear are focused on safety. Now that should tell you something useful.
You know absolutely nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's the original Atlantic wind study
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29851874/0909075107-Full-Willett-Kempton-Offshore-Wind-Study
Look at the chart on the bottom of page 5, in June coupla weeks almost no wind. And that's only a random sample.
Bonneville with windfarms covering 2/3 of the west coast lost all wind power for two weeks a year ago in January.
And last month all of Europe in a cold snap.
Baseload my ass.
As an exercise you add up all the tritium claimed from all of Vermont Yankee's test wells then compare that to the key chain fob. None as ever been found outside the fence.
"...in the US, utilities are collecting 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kWh to fund decommissioning. They must then report regularly to the NRC on the status of their decommissioning funds. As of 2001, $23.7 billion of the total estimated cost of decommissioning all US nuclear power plants had been collected, leaving a liability of about $11.6 billion to be covered over the operating lives of 104 reactors (on the basis of average $320 million per unit). "
From
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Decommissioning_nuclear_facilities
Perhaps a Denier Darwin award with a little green medal for you.
The US nuke industry has a $15B insurance fund far greater than the $150 million of deadly atomic bomb sized installations like LNG and chlorine storage carry - Far greater than deadly chemical plants and the cubic miles of deadly toxic forever mine tailing dumps all over the US. A lot more than the tiny amount of coverage for atomic bomb sized deadly chlorine and LNG storage facilities in New York harbor deadly enough to render the city uninhabitable for centuries if breached.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is illegal to insure against an impossible event that would wipe out the insurance co.
What a crock.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cost of the assembled mass produced cost of the glass and aluminum in a solar panel is actually greater than the cost the solar cells. Currently with the collapse of the Euro solar market fire sale solar panel prices are now less per sq foot than a similarly constructed mass produced skylite Home Depot. As solar cell manufacturing costs go down it has little effect on the installed cost as installation and structure dominate and as the excess in the market solar cell capacity disappears.
With $100's of billion in feedin tariff subsidy there are no further mass production cost reductions possible with solar panels.
Aliens? Hmmm....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Ronnie, be honest now, have you been smokin' positrons?)
As non-scientist but someone who has had a life-long interest in science I have one question for all of you. Did any of you read the on-line article in SciAm a few years ago in which they reported on a theoretical model of solar power coming from a few square miles of AZ dessert. In that model the authors outlined ways to store the energy and transport it. They argued that it could supply the entire energy needs of our country. Was this report every refuted?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSethdayal -
How can you say that the cost of components are greater than the cost of the assembly? Quote, "The cost of the assembled mass produced cost of the glass and aluminum in a solar panel is actually greater than the cost the solar cells."
Solar cells were about $1000 ea in the US, and that represented about 1/2 the installation cost. They have dropped to about $600 and the installed cost has dropped by about an equal percentage with design improvements for mounting, grounding, wire harnessing, etc. There are also price fluctuations due to supply/demand/competition. Cell efficiencies are still improving, and R&D holds promise for leaps forward; the technology has not peaked as you claim. If production efficiencies peak, well that's also a good thing: a sign of capital investment & automation in mfg processes trending towards the highest production efficiencies. Permitting costs are pegged at about $2500 ea per residential site. That is also being targeted for reduction.
If solar cells would cost less than a sky-light, as you claim, that would be a very good thing for the entire world!
So let's say, as you state, "there are $100's of billions in solar subsidies." Well, there are $1,000's of billions in nuclear, and a trillion per year in fossil fuels. What is your point, that we should raise solar subsidies, or that we should lower nuclear subsidies?
SigmaEyes' comment has my aye, and it should appeal to everyone who values local control and ownership.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat scares me is the overlap between the nuclear power value chain and the nuclear weapons value chain: mines, processing, centrifuges, nuclear knowledge workers etc. If the overarching goal is to reduce risks for future generations, shutting fission down should be a key objective.
I have not read the article on getting all US power from the desert, but this is discussed in Episode 14 of my book. Free online at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com, with links there to specific episodes. I was using mid-80's figures, but I doubt if the square miles conclusion would change all that much. Cost might, and energy storage is a huge problem. Electricity is that rare commodity that must be used primarily when it is created - storage isn't very good right now. There's also the "single missle shuts down the whole US grid issue". But its good to consider these things - and do the math behind them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you had a clew you could go look it up yourself. Go to home depot price a skylight get the square footage than ask your local dealer for a price on the same sq footage of solar panel. Report back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are no current subsidies on nuclear power none zilch get it!!
In fact the industry is owed $23B in decomm fees for decomming nuke plants that will always be nuke plants with only core replacements and $35B for nuclear waste storage that the plants are doing themselves waiting for fuel reprocessing.
Educate yourself before commenting.
Well, well, well, there is something not clear abbout all the fanfarre related to new nuclear in the US.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to the: Status of Potential New Commercial Nuclear Reactors in the United States availble at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactorcom.html , the only work in progress there is preliminary, in fact only placement of engineered backfill, retaining walls, lean concrete, mud mats, and a waterproof membrane. These steps could be also for a city waste dump. In any case no new nucler would go online before 2017.
So much for a renaissance.
Best regards from nuclear free Uruguay in south america.
Positrons don't last long in earth's atmosphere because the atmosphere is full ordinary atoms of nitrogen, oxygen, H2O, Co2 and greenhouse gases. Ordinary atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. When a positron comes in contact with an electron, they annihilate into gamma rays.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can use the gamma rays as your energy source but positrons, and hence gamma rays from positron annihilation, are extremely rare. Ultraviolet rays and visible light from the sun are much more common than gamma rays. This is simply solar energy which we already use.
Mr. Davis, It is my understanding that these new are
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisprivately financed. It you have information to the
contrary, please let me know. Thank you.
Peter Fowler, Oakland, CA
I think we should pay more attention to the closed-cycle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisreactors designed in this country and used in Japan,
France, England, Sweden, and other countries. They were
prohibited in this country by a Carter executive order
which could be reversed by any siting president.
The closed-cycle system reuses the spent rods and
reduces the "waste" to about 4% of the original.
Thanks for your good comment. The North America Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) will make more nuclear power generating plants possible as the needed water will be available. If we get the water to green up the American west we can get enough trees and plants going to reduce global warming also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your good comment. The North America Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) will make more nuclear power generating plants possible as the needed water will be available. If we get the water to green up the American west we can get enough trees and plants going to reduce global warming also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKirk Sorenson, explains to Dr. Kiki, the Miracle of Thorium Energy. Yes, there is a Silver Bullet, it's a silvery metal, called Thorium. For less money than Obama is throwing down the sewer on the Wind & Solar Scam, we could build the WORLD WIDE ENERGY SOLUTION - the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor - LIFTR:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEpnpyd-jbw&feature=player_embedded#at=51
I guess, we will follow Obama & Chu's philosophy and just lay back and resign ourselve to being the UNDEVELOPING Nation of the United States of America. While China develops LIFTR, and might, maybe sell us some of the tech we developed to help us out of Energy Starvation & Poverty.
well - yes - the article appeared in SciAm in Nov.2008 and it was called wind / water / solar can provide 100% of the world's energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile this might be possible in the US, it is definitely out of the question in middle Europe (Germany, France, Poland etc).
Wind, water, and the sun are just not sufficient to cover our energy needs
You seem irrational. Comparing skylights to solar panels was your claim, not mine, and it is an irrational comparison, so why would you persist? I said if it is true, as you claim, that would be a good thing for SPV. You just don't get it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to extol the exact opposite of of reality. No commercial nuclear reactors would exist if not for taxpayer subsidies. No one offers insurance to operate one unless the government limits their risk. No community would permit one in their mists if not for the additional subsidies of both oversight and regulation.
Get this thru you head: People fear nuclear power because 1. it is inherently, and immensely dangerous to people, the health of living things, and the environment. 2. corporations large enough to dissect noxious acts down into many smaller innocuous tasks have demonstrated repeated malfeasance. 3. combining these two elements in a form that is a odorless, tasteless, invisible poison is a prescription for a disaster of monumental and tragic consequence.
And, who is it that you claim "owes" billions to the entire nuclear industry? The customers that had it forced on them? The taxpayers or the ratepayers who subsidized the construction? How about the taxpayers who insured the operation? Perhaps you mean the people who protested it.
So you suggest that a nuclear power plant should never be permanently shut down. Well it seems some authorities would disagree with you. Why do you think licenses are required and why do they expire? Why are there decommissioning fees and costs? Why was Shippensburg dismantled?
So, seth, you presume I should feel sorry for the poor little energy companies that are storing nuclear waste in populated areas? You are so out of touch. Do you live in a nuke? Come up for air. There is a world of reality out here.
I would like to add a few comments on the situation here in Germany :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn subsidies : Yes -our nuclear industry got subsidies. But these were in form of setting up research facilities, small test reactors, facilities for how to handle waste management, curricula in Universities for the engineers and technicians etc.
There were no state subsidies given for the construction, set-up, maintenance and the final decommissioning of the power stations.
That is - in the price of the kilowatthour we pay there is no government subsidy included.
This is different for the wind- and solar energy.
Here the subsidy is included in the price of the kwh going to the customer.
It is simply the feed-in tariff for the generated kwh from wind and solar distributed over the total kwh delivered.
Right now this is 3,2 ct (Euro) per kwh - that is, about 4 US ct.
The more kwh are generated via wind and solar the higher this 'premium' will go up.
In 2012 it is estimated more than 4 ct(Euro).
But this is not all : Wind and solar requires electric storage facilities and a new DC transmission network.
Today - as these facilities are not yet available, it requires additonal stand-by power stations (gas) which provide electricity in case there is no wind.
And all this has be payed somehow by the kwh end-user.
We cannot continue for long like this - else the price of the kwh will just go through the roof.
Now - we also don't want to have any more those big coal dinosaur power stations.
So - right now we rely here on an ever growing gas import from countries like Russia, Lybia, Algeria for gas power stations - however,I doubt, that this is a wise alternative.
So - what other alternative do we have here - bearing in mind, that the electricity consumption will go up with all this new hype on electro mobility, fuel cells which require Hydrogen en masse, power for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis factories for generating gasoline / Diesel from plants or direct CO2 conversion.
????????
Nonsense. None other than Stewart Brand, the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog has said, "We were wrong about nuclear power."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHad we kept going nuclear in the 70's through today, the world would not have the climate change problem we do now.
Radioactivity is far less damaging than the alternatives.
I'm sorry you have so much trouble with simple concepts. But if you didn't you wouldn't be a greenie now would you!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA solar panel is a skylight with solar cells pasted to it. Without fire sales, a solar panel will never be cheaper per sq foot than the mass produced for decades skylite. That gives the cheapest solar panel a floor cost of $2 a watt - never get any cheaper.
There are no subsidies for nuclear none. Get it in your thick skull.
Recent polls have nuclear power at 75% support in the US.
Nukes are 100% pollution free with all used fuel safely stored on site awaiting reprocessing on site in new generation nukes.
The DOE has $75B in insurance, waste disposal, and decomm funds under its control. That's real money. There is no taxpayer insurance just as there is none for the atom bomb deadly chlorine and LNG storage facilities in New York harbor. There were no construction subsidies.
With the current nuke renaissance all current nukes will be replaced with more modern unit. No decomms get it. The past is irrelevant.
You are the worst sort of Global Warming Denier who uses junk science to promote silly ideas on power issues you don't understand pushing the AGW solution way into the future. You deny the Global warming science that shows the crisis is rapidly approaching.
At least the other type of Denier accepts that nuclear is the best solution to energy costs and air pollution and rejects the silly wind/solar/gas nonsense. That type at least has the right answer that solves AGW along with other issues. You Greenie Deniers don't seem to care about the millions of folks worldwide who die from air pollution every year you can defer the fossil fuel to nuclear conversion and billions who might when you drive us over the rapidly approaching peak oil/climate precipice.
You are a disgrace to your country.
It is crazy to go ahead with plans to develop the nuclear industry before we have solved the big problem : Nuclear waste left for thousands of future generations to deal with. So far we have been promised that waste will be transmutated in advanced reactors, but so far only a few fractions of a gram have been so dealt with. It is not therefor surprising that in Europe nuclear waste must forever remain accessible for regular repackaging.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell - yes - we don't have these generation 4 reactors available yet - their development will take another 15 to 20 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese new reactor types will also use these long-living actinids in their burning cycle.
Hopefully this annoying waste problem will then go away (at least to a large extent)
Maybe people have different ideas of what constitutes a subsidy, but are we to believe the industry isn't looking for assistance in starting a whole new "nuclear renaissance", via a production tax credit and/or something less direct? Excelon's CEO at least doesn't seem to think new nuclear is attractive as long as natural gas prices are anywhere near today's levels. What I'd like to see is a scientific effort to weigh all lifecycle costs for a new round of nuclear, vs. some combination of geothermal, wind, wave, natural gas combined-cycle, efficiency enhancements, and perhaps molten salt baseload solar where it can be done economically. Renewables could also be a more substantial part of the mix if the grid is to be upgraded for efficient inter-regional transmission.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe light ... I see the strength of the new energy business ( LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) growing to the point where they are no longer afraid to call it what it is, cold fusion, and go up against the likes of MIT and NASA with real practical working devices. Maybe theory will follow but let's not wait. The (E)cat is out of the bag. It is time to get this out into the mainstream.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can order an Ecat now, ~$600 upon delivery, 10kW heat output the size of a dehumidifier or box of paper. At Ecat.com. Factory being built now to produce 1,000,000 units/yr. Next year at HD. Direct replacement for your average home heating boiler. $40 for fuel with 6 months running time and easy homeowner replaceable cartridge. See: HTTP://EnergyIndependence-Rob.blogspot.com for more.