First New Nuclear Reactor In a Decade On Track

dusty writes "Plans to bring online the first new US nuclear plant since 1995 are on track, on time, and on budget according to the Tennessee Valley Authority. TVA had one major accident with a coal ash spill of late, and one minor one. The agency has plans and workers in place to have Unit 2 at Watts Bar, near Knoxville, online by 2012. Currently over 1,800 workers are doing construction at the plant. Watts Bar #1 is the only new nuclear reactor added to the grid in the last 25 years. From the article: 'TVA estimates the Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor every year will avoid the emission of about 60 million metric tons of greenhouse emissions linked with global warming. ... TVA began construction of Watts Bar in 1973, but work was suspended in 1988 when TVA's growth in power sales declined. After mothballing the unit for 19 years, TVA's board decided in 2007 to finish the reactor because it is projected to provide cheaper, no carbon-emitting power compared with the existing coal plants or purchased power it may help replace.'"

Comments

Just Takes One

[Bruha]

I guess nobody in power to stop these things never takes into account that one nuclear accident could render a majority of the US inhabitable. Chernobyl could of been much worse if a weather system absorbed the nuclear material and spread it even more than it did. Imagine a winter storm hitting California and a plant explodes, it picks up the material, traverses the south and then moves up the eastern seaboard. 75% of the major population centers rendered uninhabitable.

It would be nice if they would adopt something like a pebble bed reactor which supposedly can not go critical.

Re:Just Takes One

[cc_pirate]

He's full of shit. TMI released at LEAST 13 Million curies into the air and probably 5 times that amount was really released.

Wikipedia FTW

Re:Less radioactive waste, too

[Waffle Iron]

I don't have time right now to track down how many curies of radiation coal plants release. However, a common sense thought experiment will illustrate the point. Run a 1GW coal plant for a year and gather up the huge pile of fly ash that results. It will be about as radioactive as common granite, and you can stand in it indefinitely without any ill health effects from radiation. (Just like the people who work handling this stuff every day without bothering with any radiation protective gear.)

Now run a 1GW nuclear reactor for a year. Turn it off and walk into the reactor core which contains all the resulting waste products. You'll receive a lethal dose of radiation within minutes.

Re:Finally

[Garrett Fox]

Sure. But at present, efficiency ratings for solar panels, plus the cost of manufacturing them, plus the transmission loss from getting energy where it's needed, plus the legal hassle of convincing environmentalists that you're not going to kill an endangered insect on the precious desert landscape, combine to make solar an impractical option. For now. Unfortunately, what we're most likely to do first is heavily tax fossil fuels and heavily subsidize renewables, thus distorting the actual production cost to the point where we're really using $1.01+ of effort to produce $1.00 of energy.

Aren't recent studies saying it's too expensive?

[Eclipse-now]

I'm not totally against nuclear, in that it probably has its place in the space race and setting up bases on the Moon & Mars. But earth? Surely solar thermal with liquid salt / graphite cube heat storage is cheaper? Isn't nuclear one of the most expensive forms of electricity possible, when ALL the costs are counted?

http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/keeny.html

"Lovins said the reason for the decline is cost: on an even playing field with no hidden subsidies, nuclear is simply more expensive than other options, especially co-generation."

"Nuclear is dying of incurable attack of market forces despite what the industry wants you to believe," he remarked, adding that micropower offer more climate solution per dollar spent than nuclear."

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0607-nuclear_debate.html

And my favourite: the Nuclear Wonderland! (Now a tourist attraction).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNR-300