US to build two new nuclear power stations

[Alan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8518670.stm

Originally Posted by BBC=

President Barack Obama has announced more than $8bn (£5bn) of federal loan guarantees to begin building the first US nuclear power stations for 30 years.

Two new plants are to be constructed in the state of Georgia by US electricity firm Southern Company.

Mr Obama said the plants would be "safe and clean" and were needed to meet the country's future energy needs.

There have been no new nuclear power plants started in the US since the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island.

The accident was caused by the partial core meltdown of one of the reactors at the site in Pennsylvania, which resulted in a release of radioactive gases into the atmosphere.

While the president said the US had not "broken ground on a ... new nuclear power plant in 30 years", some US nuclear plants only became operational in the 1980s, despite construction beginning years earlier.

'Well-paid jobs'

The president said the project would create "thousands of construction jobs over eight years and then hundreds of well-paid jobs" when the facilities become operational.

He added that it was "only the beginning" of efforts to develop a new generation of safe and clean energy-efficient technologies, which would help fight climate change.

The two new reactors will be built at an existing nuclear facility in Georgia.

Southern Company said the work would create about 3,000 construction jobs and 850 people would subsequently be permanently employed when the reactors became operational.

'Meet energy needs'

"On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs," said President Obama.

"To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple."

Southern's chief executive David Ratcliffe said the president's announcement was "an important endorsement in the role nuclear power must play in diversifying our nation's energy mix and helping to curb greenhouse gas emissions".

There are currently 104 operating nuclear reactors across 31 states in the US, which provide about one-fifth of the country's electricity.

Meanwhile, there are currently 56 new nuclear reactors being built around the world.

Personally I don't mind the use of nuclear energy that much. It has its risks of course, but the fear of a nuclear meltdown is hyperbolic; a remainder of a fear of nuclear power from an era I didn't live.
Yeah, nuclear waste is a huge hazard, but so is methane and excessive CO2 emissions. I think side to side taking responsible care of nuclear waste is more cost-effective than reducing carbon emissions and therefore more realistic.

There are better options, like a liquid fluoride thorium reactor, but hell, for that to happen we still need to get rid of the phobia of nuclear energy, so it's sort of in the right direction. What do you think?

[Despanan]

I agree. So long as this is properly managed it's a good move.

I wonder if the republicans will go green over this.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Holy shit, Despanbanana (term of endearment not mockery) and Alan agreeing.
More on topic:

I heard some rumor that France has found a way to recycle nuclear waste in some capacity. If that's true, then perhaps this Nuclear Power plant will be good. In my head I'm hearing all the screams of "Nuclear Power Destroys the Earth" from people like Oi Polloi but this isn't 1986, and this isn't Chernobyl.

The condition is, they better handle the waste responsibly, or they shouldn't even open the plant.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

I heard some rumor that France has found a way to recycle nuclear waste in some capacity. If that's true, then perhaps this Nuclear Power plant will be good.

That's been going on for a long time, I don't know who used it first (may well have been France) but it's in use in several European countries at least. Not the US though, I think because of proliferation fears. Essentially the burned products within the core of a plant aren't dumped, instead the remaining fuel is separated and used again. Some of the other products stop reactions unless the reprocessing happens. It leaves a lot less waste, unfortunately there's no mention of US plans in that article.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

In my head I'm hearing all the screams of "Nuclear Power Destroys the Earth" from people like Oi Polloi but this isn't 1986, and this isn't Chernobyl.

Chernobyl was... unlikely to have happened. Lots of factors came together at once, it was a mix of timing, unsuitable people being present, lack of communication with safety officers, an experiment that didn't go through the right channels, some equipment flaws, and warning systems being turned off and ignored. It wouldn't have happened had if all the safety systems were on.


Hopefully the fact that there are plans for these new plants means that someone has actually worked out that nuclear power is economically viable. They are pretty expensive when decommissioning costs are considered. Cost wasn't really a factor in nuclear power originally, it was subsidised by the military to create weapons grade material. And now in France, which has a large percentage of energy generation in nuclear plants, the low cost of their electricity is largely down to the money they get from exporting some of it to foreign countries. These cost bits might be wrong, but as far as I can remember it's all correct.

[vindicatedxjin]

It totally seems like a pretty good idea as of now, as far as money and carbon dioxide go...with Texas already having several plants, it kinda opens my eyes to the fact that America is going to be heading in the nuclear power direction regardless. But even if they prevent things like the meltdown in Chernobyl and have the very best ways of dealing with the waste...the scary fact still lingers that there is no way to safely dispose of it for good. So what do we do when that starts getting out of hand?

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

It totally seems like a pretty good idea as of now, as far as money and carbon dioxide go...with Texas already having several plants, it kinda opens my eyes to the fact that America is going to be heading in the nuclear power direction regardless.

"There have been no new nuclear power plants started in the US since the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island."

The US hasn't really been pursuing nuclear power in years. All the existing plants are old.

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

the scary fact still lingers that there is no way to safely dispose of it for good. So what do we do when that starts getting out of hand?

Eventually waste will decay to stable products, admittedly that will take many many years but I wouldn't say there is a danger of it "getting out of hand". Really it's like non-nuclear industrial waste, it needs secure storage to prevent it leaking into the environment. Problems would arise if it was being illegally dumped but that isn't a nuclear specific problem.

[Alan]

The problem again is that it is much more harmful to dispose of it without proper care. We all have heard the cases of half-assed nuclear waste disposal in inhabited areas.
But let it be a government initiative, and you get relatively clean, responsible, cheap energy.

[Raptor]

There are plenty of cases of non-nuclear dumping incidents too, the relative danger would depend on how you weigh toxicity/radioactivity per unit and the volume of waste produced. In any case I'm sure everyone agrees that use of nuclear power should require strict disposal regulations, I was just pointing out that radioactive waste makes up a relatively small proportion of dangerous industrial waste products.

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by Raptor

radioactive waste makes up a relatively small proportion of dangerous industrial waste products.

As of now...

[Raptor]

I've not read anything that suggests anything else will ever be the case. Even if nuclear power plays a much larger role in the world's energy generation in the future I doubt it will overtake other hazardous waste production.

[Delkaetre]

I'm still a little wary. Disposal of nuclear waste isn't necessarily something you want going to the lowest bidder- just look at Trafigura's track record for "safe" disposal of highly toxic materials.

I'm all for making use of power sources that need less oil, coal and fossil fuel, but with the callous disdain for environmental standards shown by plenty of corporate concerns I'm not entirely comfortable with putting more nuclear waste out there for people to play with.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

I think if the US institutes the European recycling idea, then the by-products can be used up and there will be a fair bit less waste to worry about.

[Still Jack]

I feel that if France can rely on Nuclear Power to 70-something percent % and not have any impending doom like fuckups, I think the U.S. should be able to too. Just don't let morons work on it.

[vindicatedxjin]

Americans ARE morons.

[Still Jack]

I'm pretty sure they can scrape a few people together that can run a nuclear power station without pressing the do not press button.

[Saya]

Apparently we're getting more too, or at least Ontario is, last year a nuclear plant had to be shut down for a month and everyone was in a panic because that plant was a source for medical isotopes.

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by Still Jack

I'm pretty sure they can scrape a few people together that can run a nuclear power station without pressing the do not press button.

Doubt it....

[Anndrea]

optimism child, optimism!

[vindicatedxjin]

When it comes to nuclear shit....I can't be optimistic. I don't know why, I hear the word and the picture of doom comes to mind. Except when it comes to fall out 3. =)

Oh wait...it has alot of doom because of NUCLEAR shit.

[FlowerGirl]

Daily Joke - Qualified to Discuss Nuclear Power?

A stranger was seated next to Little Johnny on the plane when the stranger turned to the Little Johnny and said, "Let's talk. I've heard that flights will go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

Little Johnny, who had just opened his book, closed it slowly, and said to the stranger, "What would you like to discuss?"

"Oh, I don't know," said the stranger. "How about nuclear power?"

"OK," said Little Johnny. "That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. "A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat grass. The same stuff. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?"

"Jeez," said the stranger. "I have no idea."

"Well, then," said Little Johnny, "How is it that you feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don't know ****?"

http://www.experienceproject.com/sto...d-Riddles/4489

[Alan]

Jesus Christ, xjin, saying stupid pessimistic shit doesn't make you look smart; it's still stupid shit.
Seriously, 300 million people and you think there are no good ones? Just shut up. Seriously, just give it up. It's so sad to read you. It's like you're drowning and think you can save yourself by drinking up the pool. YOU'RE an iconic example of American idiocy, so shut the fuck up you fat-assed hypocrite.

[vindicatedxjin]

Just because you think america is the "shit" because your country sucks dick, doesn't mean that I have to agree....

[PortraitOfSanity]

Yea, you're not racist.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

Just because you think america is the "shit" because your country sucks dick, doesn't mean that I have to agree....

You see what I mean? That literally doesn't mean shit. You just pulled a sting of words from your ass, and I fear of all the numerous other bullshit phrases that are stuck up there; they must be legion in numbers in there.
Seriously, what the fuck were you trying to accomplish with that sentence?

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

I think if the US institutes the European recycling idea, then the by-products can be used up and there will be a fair bit less waste to worry about.

Might happen after all. I think the usual US policy involved sealing up old plants with waste inside. Then there were plans to build a deep storage facility in Nevada. But according to the company that's going to build these new plants, the Yucca mountain plans were scrapped last year and the Obama administration favours "recycling" which sounds more promising at least.

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

Just because you think america is the "shit" because your country sucks dick, doesn't mean that I have to agree....

Alan is right, you're gibbering. You have no idea what you're talking about, at all. The US doesn't have the ability to run nuclear power plants. Right. I guess that explains why you earlier said "Texas already having several plants". The country has been active in nuclear research since the end of WW2 (and before if you include weapons). Research that accelerated along with most fields of science in the US during the cold war when everyone realised that those backward people that live on the other side of the map weren't so backward afterall. The French are probably at the forefront of nuclear energy, which I would imagine is why experiments like ITER are being based there, but the US is perfectly capable.

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

Oh wait...it has alot of doom because of NUCLEAR shit.

I'm not sure if that's a reference to Fallout 3, or to nuclear power. If it's to Fallout, then the environment in the game is due to nuclear weapons, not nuclear power. If it's to the real world, then you have a fear of the word. "Nuclear" has a stigma attached and that seems to be the entire basis for what you're saying here. It's pretty silly really, even techniques that are widely used and accepted like NMRI make people go crazy, the "N" had to be dropped from the name but nothing else changed. Yet that made all the difference.