Slashdot Mirror
First New Nuclear Plant in US in 30 years
Hugh Pickens writes "With backing from the White House and congressional leaders, and subsidies like the $500 million in risk insurance from the Department of Energy, the nuclear industry is experiencing a revival in the US. Scientific American reports that this week NRG Energy filed an application for the first new nuclear power plant in the US in thirty years to build two advanced boiling water reactors (ABWR) at its South Texas nuclear power plant site doubling the 2700 megawatts presently generated at the facility. The ABWR, based on technology already operating in Japan, works by using the heat generated by the controlled splitting of uranium atoms in fuel rods to directly boil water into steam to drive turbines producing electricity. Improvements over previous designs include removing water circulation pipes that could rupture and accidentally drain water from the reactor, exposing the fuel rods to a potential meltdown, and fewer pumps to move the water through the system. NRG projects it will spend $6 billion constructing the two new reactors and hopes to have the first unit online by 2014."
Shouldn't you have been modded "Funny"?
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
Well, everyone knows that, actually anyone with an inkling of sense knows that Nuclear Power will play an important role in satisfying the energy demands of the future. Now, my question is this:
Why a country which has oil as the biggest(only?) source of income trying to develop alternative energy sources is evil only because it can be used by the radical elements to create a nuclear weapon somehow? Yeah I understand the situation with all the flashy rheoterics flying about but, from their point of view, they are taking a step in the right direction to safeguard the future when the oil runs out. Moreover, even all the oil in their land will not be able to do certain tasks (say power a space mission in some distant future) unless they have a better energy source. We like to point out their seemingly backwards looking policies and rules but when they do something like working on a nuclear reactor, its suddenly dangerous, too dangerous to let them handle it.
I am not trying to troll but can someone please point out the justification for it without getting into any religious tirade. (We can leave the whole issue of whether getting nukes does or does not give any country a sort of bargaining power or not, if that troubles anyone)
Disclaimer: No, I am not from Iran. (I am not even a muslim, not that it matters or should matter)
Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
Oh dear. you have shown a staggering lack of understanding about environmental politics in that post.
I'm a geek, a computer programmer and lover of sci-fi, modern technology, gadgets and future tech. I'm also an environmentalist. The idea that being green == wanting to go back in time is just plain nutso, and is the kind of twaddle that gets peddled on fox news.
I'm all for modern tech, I don't mind all kinds of stuff in theory, but I'm aware of the precautionary principle, in terms of not releasing anything into the atmosphere and eco system that we don't 100% know how to control (which is why I'm not so keen on GM food), and why I'm concerned about the worst case scenarios involved with nuclear power.
Nuclear fusion sounds good, but show me a commercial scale nuclear fusion reactor? And the history of Nuclear fission in my home (UK) is that it is prone to constant leaks and accidents, accountancy fraud, huge overspend, exaggerated claims of profitability, security breaches etc etc.
My main argument against nuclear power is financial, the costs of waste disposal, security and decommissioning are not fully known, and every study into the UKs current nuclear cleanup bill pushes that cost higher. I'm also not 100% convinced by the safety issue, given the huge possible down side of a Chernobyl style accident occurring. (agreed that this is unlikely, but exactly how unlikely? we should always guard against the worst case.)
You can be pro modern society, pro-tech, and green. there is absolutely zero conflict there. In fact, if you are always forward looking and interested in maximising efficiency (as many tech-obsessed geeks are), then its harder to understand how you would *not* be green.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games