PDA

View Full Version : Environment U.S. may approve 1st nuclear reactors since 1978


jiveturkey
02-09-2012, 11:18 AM
Here's some good news.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-02-09/us-nuclear-reactors-approve/53027204/1

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to approve Southern Co.'s request to build two nuclear reactors in the southern state of Georgia.
If approved, the $14 billion reactors could begin operating as soon as 2016 and 2017.

STORY: Regulators approve nuclear reactor design
The NRC last approved construction of a nuclear plant in 1978, a year before a partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania raised fears of a radiation release and brought new reactor orders nearly to a halt.

The NRC approved a new reactor design for the Georgia plant in December. Utility companies in Florida and the Carolinas also plan new reactors that use the same design by Westinghouse Electric Co.

The planned reactors are remnants of a once-anticipated building boom that the power industry dubbed the "nuclear renaissance."

President Obama has offered the Georgia project $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees as part of its pledge to expand nuclear power.

Obama and other proponents say greater use of nuclear power could cut U.S. reliance on fossil fuels and create energy without producing emissions blamed for global warming. A new government permit process strongly encourages utilities to use pre-approved reactor designs rather than building custom models, a strategy intended to make construction easier and less expensive.
The once hoped-for boom has been plagued by a series of problems, from the prolonged economic downturn to the sharp drop in the price of natural gas, due in part to improved drilling techniques that have allowed energy companies to tap previously unavailable underground shale formations.
The nuclear disaster in Japan last year also increased scrutiny of the industry and led to a series of recommendations by the NRC to improve safety at the 104 U.S. nuclear reactors. The changes are intended to make the plants better prepared for incidents they were not initially designed to handle, such as prolonged power blackouts or damage to multiple reactors at the same time.

The agency also has proposed increased protection against earthquakes, floods and fires.

The Georgia project is considered by many observers to be a major test of whether the industry can build nuclear plants without the delays and cost overruns that plagued earlier rounds of building decades ago.

blaise
02-09-2012, 11:20 AM
Sounds good.

Bowser
02-09-2012, 11:54 AM
Nice.

I wonder why they would ty it in Geiorgia but not in California. Isn't Cali the state with the rolling blackout problem?

FD
02-09-2012, 11:57 AM
Great news if this goes through.

Mr. Kotter
02-09-2012, 11:58 AM
It's about friggin' time.

blaise
02-09-2012, 12:06 PM
Nice.

I wonder why they would ty it in Geiorgia but not in California. Isn't Cali the state with the rolling blackout problem?

Land is too valuable in California.

KC Dan
02-09-2012, 12:48 PM
Nice.

I wonder why they would ty it in Geiorgia but not in California. Isn't Cali the state with the rolling blackout problem?Two words: Environmental Wackjobs

stonedstooge
02-09-2012, 12:56 PM
Will it go through in time for O'Bama to get kickbacks for his campaign?

Chief Faithful
02-09-2012, 12:58 PM
Land is too valuable in California.

When you are talking about $16Billion projects, land price is the least expensive component. $1M and acre would be budget dust.

vailpass
02-09-2012, 01:26 PM
Nice.

I wonder why they would ty it in Geiorgia but not in California. Isn't Cali the state with the rolling blackout problem?

A few years back I was involved with a project that required us to hire contractors around the country. The two partners I had on the project were adamant about one thing: absolutely no hiring from California even though they had a good population of the particular skill set we needed.

Why? They didn't want to be involved with the restrictive regulations that came with employing Californians, nor did they want to be involved with the particular social/political environment there.

Don't know that this applies at all here but it came to mind when you asked the question.

FD
02-09-2012, 01:27 PM
Nice.

I wonder why they would ty it in Geiorgia but not in California. Isn't Cali the state with the rolling blackout problem?

Earthquake issues?

jiveturkey
02-09-2012, 01:45 PM
A few years back I was involved with a project that required us to hire contractors around the country. The two partners I had on the project were adamant about one thing: absolutely no hiring from California even though they had a good population of the particular skill set we needed.

Why? They didn't want to be involved with the restrictive regulations that came with employing Californians, nor did they want to be involved with the particular social/political environment there.

Don't know that this applies at all here but it came to mind when you asked the question.
I feel your pain. I'm with a national healthcare provider and our clinical recruiters are loosing hair trying to deal with CA.

I'm on the sales and operations side, which is pretty straight forward. The clinicians have a long list of weirdness that includes things like state mandated pay and mandated hours are a few that I can remember them tossing out there.

I can't think of any other states that are anywhere close to the silliness that CA has thrown together.

vailpass
02-09-2012, 01:49 PM
I feel your pain. I'm with a national healthcare provider and our clinical recruiters are loosing hair trying to deal with CA.

I'm on the sales and operations side, which is pretty straight forward. The clinicians have a long list of weirdness that includes things like state mandated pay and mandated hours are a few that I can remember them tossing out there.

I can't think of any other states that are anywhere close to the silliness that CA has thrown together.

Yep, you know the deal. Their rules covering contractors were insane as well.

Cali's anti-employer policies have not only cost them untold amounts of lost revenue dollars they have also contributed to bankrupting that state.

blaise
02-09-2012, 02:12 PM
A few years back I was involved with a project that required us to hire contractors around the country. The two partners I had on the project were adamant about one thing: absolutely no hiring from California even though they had a good population of the particular skill set we needed.

Why? They didn't want to be involved with the restrictive regulations that came with employing Californians, nor did they want to be involved with the particular social/political environment there.

Don't know that this applies at all here but it came to mind when you asked the question.

I was reading a story from New York yesterday, about their government rules. Some guy had 5 or 6 pizza stores. Some gov't guy came in and did an audit and gave him a fine of about $5,000 because he didn't provide enough polo shirts for employees. The pizza guy was like,(I'm paraphrasing) "Some people work a couple of hours a day. I didn't give them a shirt per day because they barely wore them."
Then he was saying it was almost not worth it to deal with the BS. Stupid.

alnorth
02-09-2012, 02:19 PM
The reactors were approved by a vote of 4-1. The lone dissenter didn't have a problem with the plant's design, but after the Japanese disaster a few useful improvements to the design were created, which the builders agreed with and will install, that could improve the plant's safety a little bit, and the guy who voted no wanted a binding commitment that the plant could not come online without those improvements. The other 4 said that shouldn't be necessary, as long as they put in the improvements as soon as they can. (keeping the plant offline for the extra year or whatever time would have increased the cost of the project and increased the electric bills for ratepayers)

The key difference between the old reactors and the newer-generation reactors being built today is that the new reactors use a more passive type of cooling system with fewer moving parts and less reliance on power. The Japanese disaster happened because in order to safely shut down a reactor, you still needed power for the cooling system, they lost power and couldn't get power back online in time. With this new reactor's passive cooling system, you could supposedly lose power, not get power back online at all, and still safely shut it down.

vailpass
02-09-2012, 02:37 PM
I was reading a story from New York yesterday, about their government rules. Some guy had 5 or 6 pizza stores. Some gov't guy came in and did an audit and gave him a fine of about $5,000 because he didn't provide enough polo shirts for employees. The pizza guy was like,(I'm paraphrasing) "Some people work a couple of hours a day. I didn't give them a shirt per day because they barely wore them."
Then he was saying it was almost not worth it to deal with the BS. Stupid.

Unreal. That govt. worker should be fined double and have to pay the businessman's fine.

LiveSteam
02-09-2012, 04:30 PM
Splinters in Her Crotch

A woman from Los Angeles, who was a tree hugger, a liberal Democrat, and an anti-hunter, purchased a piece of timberland near Colville, WA.

There was a large tree on one of the highest points in the tract. She wanted a good view of the natural splendor of her land so she started to climb the big tree. As she neared the top she encountered a spotted owl that attacked her.

In her haste to escape, the woman slid down the tree to the ground and got many splinters in her crotch. In considerable pain, she hurried to a local ER to see a doctor.
She told him she was an environmentalist, a democrat, and an anti-hunter and how she came to get all the splinters.

The doctor listened to her story with great patience and then told her to go wait in the examining room and he would see if he could help her.

She sat and waited three hours before the doctor reappeared.

The angry woman demanded, "What took you so long?"

He smiled and then told her, "Well, I had to get permits from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management before I could remove old-growth timber from a "recreational area" so close to a waste treatment facility. I'm sorry, but due to Obama-Care they turned you down!

whoman69
02-09-2012, 05:13 PM
Land is too valuable in California.

They can certainly find worthless land in California.

whoman69
02-09-2012, 05:17 PM
Nuke baby nuke. Hmm, Obama could get the job done where Bush could not.

go bowe
02-09-2012, 05:41 PM
i'm all for nuclear power, as long as it's somewhere else in case it does a 3 mile dealio... :D

Chiefshrink
02-09-2012, 09:25 PM
Well the fact this is occurring under OMarxist's watch this new nuclear plant will probably have the power of a microwave:rolleyes:

Dick Bull
02-09-2012, 10:56 PM
Well the fact this is occurring under OMarxist's watch this new nuclear plant will probably have the power of a microwave:rolleyes:

It's stupid shit like this that makes you not credible.

Obama could personally cure cancer tomorrow and you would criticize him for taking too long.

oldandslow
02-10-2012, 07:48 AM
Obama has always been pro nuke. The problem I have with him is that he wants it both ways. He catered to the anti nuke crowd when he shut down Yucca mountain - yet he goes ahead and approves two new nuclear reactors...we still have a waste problem and no where to put it, but he will let the next Pres worry about that.

Dave Lane
02-10-2012, 07:48 AM
It's stupid shit like this that makes you not credible.

Obama could personally cure cancer tomorrow and you would criticize him for taking too long.

No actually it's his 5,000 other vapid, moronic posts that are normally barely sentient. Odd thing is his football takes are equally stupid.

Dave Lane
02-10-2012, 07:51 AM
Obama has always been pro nuke. The problem I have with him is that he wants it both ways. He catered to the anti nuke crowd when he shut down Yucca mountain - yet he goes ahead and approves two new nuclear reactors...we still have a waste problem and no where to put it, but he will let the next Pres worry about that.

Not knowing the plans, my guess would be there were design flaws with Yucca Mountain that the new plan addresses. He certainly wasn't trying to shut them all down.

alnorth
02-10-2012, 08:03 AM
Not knowing the plans, my guess would be there were design flaws with Yucca Mountain that the new plan addresses. He certainly wasn't trying to shut them all down.

There is no new plan. Our current plan is to store radioactive waste at each nuke plant, and to start over with trying to figure out a new plan.

There really was not a good reason, other than politics, to shut down Yucca Mountain. It is one of the most isolated and geologically stable places in our country. It was selected after a very long period of study through multiple administrations, and a lot of the construction to prepare it for long-term nuclear storage was completed. It is uninhabited, not close to a source of water, deep inside a friggen mountain in the middle of a desert in NV, etc. The only opposition was Harry Reid (because people in NV freaked, said "NIMBY", and yelled at him to do something), some indian tribe, and the usual band of insane environmentalists who want all nuke plants shut down yesterday.

They found some small dead fault line, and used that to argue earthquakes, even though a damaging earthquake is not likely at all when you run our best 100,000 year earthquake models, and even if it did, if the mountain caved in, we'd still basically be fine because, again, no population, no water sources, it would just be a big nuclear coffin where the spent rods (each of them sealed inside their own containers) would carry on as before with slow decay, maybe we just couldn't add more.

A future administration and congress will re-open Yucca because it makes too much sense. Its not like Obama went in, ripped everything out, and destroyed the option, the preparations made to this point are still there, he just halted the project.

FishingRod
02-10-2012, 09:16 AM
It pains me to ever say this but, perhaps we should talk with the French. They same to have a fairly good handle on how to do this.

Donger
02-10-2012, 09:19 AM
It pains me to ever say this but, perhaps we should talk with the French. They same to have a fairly good handle on how to do this.

We know how to re-process spent fuel, but we don't. We should.

Radar Chief
02-10-2012, 09:24 AM
We know how to re-process spent fuel, but we don't. We should.

Indeed, its simply wasteful not to.

kc rush
02-10-2012, 09:29 AM
They can certainly find worthless land in California.

Oakland?

vailpass
02-10-2012, 11:12 AM
Nuke baby nuke. Hmm, Obama could get the job done where Bush could not.

ROFL

whoman69
02-10-2012, 01:43 PM
Oakland?

Close, but I was thinking about all the desert they have.

Donger
02-10-2012, 02:23 PM
Close, but I was thinking about all the desert they have.

FWIW, California already has two plants with four reactors total, if memory serves. They'd never get a new reactor approved at either plant, though.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:24 PM
FWIW, California already has two plants with four reactors total, if memory serves. They'd never get a new reactor approved at either plant, though.

Why not?

Donger
02-10-2012, 02:26 PM
Why not?

Hippies.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:31 PM
Hippies.

LMAO Really? Thought it might have to do with needing to update the emergency containment system or some other structural issue.
I should have guessed.

Donger
02-10-2012, 02:34 PM
LMAO Really? Thought it might have to do with needing to update the emergency containment system or some other structural issue.
I should have guessed.

Heck, San Onofre had a little "oops!" recently and the normal suspects wet their pants. Adding a new reactor, let alone a new plant, just won't happen.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 02:40 PM
Heck, San Onofre had a little "oops!" recently and the normal suspects wet their pants. Adding a new reactor, let alone a new plant, just won't happen.

Bring 'em out here and let 'em live around Palo Verde for a while, they'll be grateful for their little ol' plant.

Jawshco
02-11-2012, 02:18 AM
I feel your pain. I'm with a national healthcare provider and our clinical recruiters are loosing hair trying to deal with CA.

I'm on the sales and operations side, which is pretty straight forward. The clinicians have a long list of weirdness that includes things like state mandated pay and mandated hours are a few that I can remember them tossing out there.

I can't think of any other states that are anywhere close to the silliness that CA has thrown together.

I work for a national HC company as well, and I'm an HR Director for them in Cali. There's Definitely profit to be made in this state, but you have to have a good strategy for working around the wacky laws. Once you enforce procedures to help prevent you from going to court you're fine. However, if you land in court in the Bay Area or Kern County- you're screwed. However, The judges in Fresno and Orange County are surprisingly fair in my experience.

I think New Jersey is almost as bad or worse than Cali is with their labor laws. Our company is involved in more litigation there than in my state. Of course, I'm pretty good at keeping my region out of court in the first place.