Training Under Way For New Nuclear Plant Operators In S. Carolina

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Training Under Way For New Nuclear Plant Operators In S. Carolina

Posted by timothy on Thursday December 20, 2012 @03:48AM from the we-figure-cut-the-red-fire-first dept.

"Start thinking about getting your tinfoil hat radiation hardened," writes an anonymous reader, and excerpts thus from ABC News: "Southern Co. in Georgia and SCANA Corp. in South Carolina are the first to prepare new workers to run a recently approved reactor design never before built in the United States. Training like it will be repeated over the decades-long lifetime of those plants and at other new ones that may share the technology in years to come. Both power companies are building pairs of Westinghouse Electric Corp. AP1000 reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta and SCANA Corp.'s Summer Nuclear Station northwest of Columbia, S.C. While the nuclear industry had earlier proposed a larger building campaign, low natural gas prices coupled with uncertainty after last year's disaster at a Japanese nuclear plant have scaled back those ambitions." Getting a new nuclear plant approved is a long haul.

74 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

SC Legend by Tokolosh · 2012-12-20 03:53 · Score: 5, Funny

South Carolina has the largest number of nuclear facilities and radioactive waste in the USA.
Washington DC has the largest number of lawyers.
South Carolina won the toss and had first choice.

--
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
1. Re:SC Legend by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:12 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  So that explains why they vote Republican! They're suffering from radiation poisoning!
2. Re:SC Legend by Nadaka · 2012-12-20 04:48 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  That is only because of the low population numbers in Mississippi and Alabama, they got you beat in % of racists and morons.
3. Re:SC Legend by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  And the largest number of racists, morons...
  Not true, per-capita South Dakota has more racists and morons than any state south of the Mason-Dixon line. They're the only state to elect a murdering rapist to the US House of Representatives and twice to the Governor's mansion.
4. Re:SC Legend by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, because it's totally believable that there would be a stop sign to run in a 55mph zone.
  Wikipedia sucks and is a horrible source to depend on, especially when you're trying to look snarky on the Internet from your mom's basement.
5. Re:SC Legend by holmstar · 2012-12-20 06:44 · Score: 2
  
  Have you never driven outside of a city? Most roads are 55mph, and there are stop signs at pretty much every intersection (in at least one direction).
6. Re:SC Legend by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Murderer? Really?
  Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts had a car accident in which Mary Jo Kopechne was killed. Does that make him a murderer, too?
  Your link for William Janklow says he was accused of rape. He was accused, yes, but given his age and how out of shape he was - from his photos - the gal in question could probably have beat him to a pulp. We do not know if he was falsely accused, but there was not enough evidence so the charges were dropped.
  Please consider that Wikipedia will say what the last person to edit it wants it to say. William Janklow was a Republican. I doubt that his Democratic opponent will allow Wikipedia to cast him in a good light, even if he is already dead.
7. Re:SC Legend by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  The rape happened in 1975... dipshit.
8. Re:SC Legend by DeadCatX2 · 2012-12-20 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  Your link for William Janklow says he was accused of rape. He was accused, yes, but given his age and how out of shape he was - from his photos - the gal in question could probably have beat him to a pulp.
  The victim was a 15-year old girl against a 26-year old adult male at the time of the rape.
  Please consider that Wikipedia will say what the last person to edit it wants it to say.
  Incorrect, Wikipedia has a history that can show you everything that was ever on the article, so it says everything that every person ever edited it to say. If you think there have been malicious edits made recently to his entry, you should check that history and you can revert it back.
  Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts had a car accident in which Mary Jo Kopechne was killed. Does that make him a murderer, too?
  Janklow was convicted of manslaughter. I agree that "murderer" is the wrong term for someone with that conviction. However, Janklow was doing 70 in a 55 and ran a stop sign. In contrast, Kennedy was doing 20 on an unlit dirt road with no guard rail when he drove off the bridge and into the water. Kennedy also claimed to have tried at least seven times to dive down to the car. Kennedy was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident.
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
Re:Better at Nukes? by Thorodin · 2012-12-20 04:10 · Score: 1

What do you mean? I am just curious and NOT trying to start a debate. I just don't know what you're referring to.
Not revolutionary by flayzernax · 2012-12-20 04:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

The reactors them selves are chernobyl biscuis (/sarcasm).
http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ Commonly known as a pressurized water reactor (PWR).
The only thing revolutionary is the control systems. Its more digitized and automated then ever before. Personally I don't like this, not very warm and fuzzy about the US nuclear commission and the state of the industry. I would like to see other designs implemented.
1. Re:Not revolutionary by flayzernax · 2012-12-20 04:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  According to this article though, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor, Chernyobyl was graphite modulated, and different then a PWR.
2. Re:Not revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the most revolutionary thing in the AP1000s is the passive safety system. Also, the fact that it's a modular design is a pretty impressive thing.
3. Re:Not revolutionary by wjwlsn · 2012-12-20 05:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Compare the safety, reliability, efficiency, and comfort of a car designed and built in the 60s/70s to one from the 21st century... not much revolution, but a whole lot of evolution. Which is better?
  
  --
  Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
4. Re:Not revolutionary by Jawnn · 2012-12-20 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Compare the safety, reliability, efficiency, and comfort of a car designed and built in the 60s/70s to one from the 21st century... not much revolution, but a whole lot of evolution. Which is better?
  21st century models, of course, but that's probably not a comparison you want to make. After all, accidents still happen and people still die, every day, in late model cars.
5. Re:Not revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  "Revolutionary" is a stupid word to use, but there is a great deal more to the AP1000 than just its improved control systems.
  Most of the newer technologies used in the AP1000 are meant to deal with accidents involving loss of offsite power (E.g., the Fukushima accident). It involves a lot of passive cooling systems, which require no power or intervention to operate, and are really neat.
  http://ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/station_blackout_home/passivecontainmentcooling.html
  This website has a remarkably good (Though slow as hell) description of the so-called revolutionary cooling systems.
6. Re:Not revolutionary by wjwlsn · 2012-12-20 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Don't stretch analogies too far... they're liable to snap back and leave a welt.
  
  --
  Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
7. Re:Not revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 07:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  The only thing revolutionary is the control systems.
  The nuclear industry doesn't like "revolutionary". They are risk-adverse and prefer reliable, proven, known technologies over more exotic options. Sorry... but no regional power company is going to commit billions to implementing a Gen IV design at commercial scales until this stuff is much, much further along. Not that the NRC would let it happen at this point anyways. The hurdles to any new nuclear development are enormous enough without this sort of fantasizing.
  That said, I think you're overlooking this tidbit from the AP1000 Wikipedia page:
  
  50% fewer safety-related valves
  35% fewer pumps
  80% less safety related piping
  85% less control cable
  45% less seismic building volume
  passive cooling for up to 72 hours
  This is pretty freaking cool. It's a big win for safety (that passive cooling would have been a nice backup for the 36 minutes that Vogtle lost cooling in 1990, for example). It's an even bigger win for cost reduction. A nuclear plant is basically one huge machine that is constantly undergoing maintenance. This requires a huge amount of human capital to plan, review, coordinate, practice, perform, check, and proceduralize the work in a safe and secure way. And these aren't people with art degrees... these are engineers, managers, and skilled blue-collar workers. With the AP100, nuclear's "talent cost" per MW is lowered, which means that society can generate more energy for the same amount of talent or it can allocate more human talent to other endeavors (such as going back to the moon, etc.). [Whether our society will smartly allocate this excess talent or not is a different question, admittedly, but it's still a "win" in principle for this new design.]
  Disclaimer: used to support Vogtle.
8. Re:Not revolutionary by mnooning · 2012-12-20 07:22 · Score: 2
  
  A passive cooling system means you do not have to pump the water. Hotter water rises to the top because there are less molecules per given volume, hence less weight, than cooler water. Actually implementing a gravity driven cooling system is a big deal.
9. Re:Not revolutionary by khallow · 2012-12-20 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's worth remembering that 21st century cars are safer even when you do get in an accident, even if you can still die in them. Sure, you can come up with scenarios where nuclear reactor safeguards probably don't work, such as a direct strike by a nuclear weapon (which I might add is not as remote a likelihood as we'd like).
  
  But it's a bit frivolous to complain that there's still a chance of an accident. You aren't just causing risk of harm for no reason after all. There's a big benefit, power being generated, as well. The combination has to be consider, not just the negative half in isolation.
10. Re:Not revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 13:44 · Score: 0
  
  you are truly an idiot
Why is it different? by hhawk · 2012-12-20 04:20 · Score: 1

Other than digital controls the article doesn't say how this design is different.. is it just the controls?

--
http://www.hawknest.com/
1. Re:Why is it different? by Trepidity · 2012-12-20 04:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It's the first "3rd generation" reactor design to be approved, and is supposed to have much better passive-safety features than previous generations. For example, in a reactor scram, the core would be cooled by a gravity-driven cooling system that works without power.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
2. Re:Why is it different? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-12-20 04:34 · Score: 2
  
  ...and we just hope that there is no coolant leak. I suppose that is better than hoping there is no leak and hoping the cooling system remains powered, but really we need systems with better passive safety before we build more nuclear reactors.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
3. Re:Why is it different? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Its a new design, but PWR's have been around for awhile. Its like a refit of older designs.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 [wikipedia.org]
4. Re:Why is it different? by wjwlsn · 2012-12-20 04:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  On top of the digital controls, it has vastly simpler mechanical and electrical design, yielding significant reductions in the amounts of safety-related piping, cabling, valves, seismic building volume, etc.
  Something that should be appreciated, but is seldom mentioned: the design work has been conducted using modern computers and software incorporating vastly improved analytical methods for nuclear, thermal, mechanical, civil, and electrical analysis. The last round of plants built in the US were designed in the 60s and 70s using tools that seem positively ancient by today's standards.
  
  --
  Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
5. Re:Why is it different? by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2012-12-20 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  AP-1000's use a natural circulation cooling feature in such an event to keep cooling flow through the core and breach.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
6. Re:Why is it different? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  The AP1000 is different than previous designs in that emergency cooling does not rely on backup AC power to function. Instead, cooling relies on 'passive' features like gravity and convection. For example, in the event of a severe accident, water stored in a 750,000 gallon tank above the reactor building, is released and cascades over the exterior of the containment vessel, cooling it through evaporation. This evaporation in turn sets up convection currents inside the containment vessel that cools the reactor (picture it raining inside containment). The tank holds enough water for approximately 72 hours of cooling and requires no operator actions to initiate.
7. Re:Why is it different? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  Not a lot of driving potential with gravity driven systems...a pump is better IMO
8. Re:Why is it different? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  One of the issues I have heard discussed is the extreme difficulty of getting a plant approved and the more modern reactor designs approved.
  Yes, force the old designs to continue running and stave off improvements. That will keep us SAFE!
9. Re:Why is it different? by wjwlsn · 2012-12-20 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Depending on the flow you need, and the conditions under which the flow must be provided, a pump *is* better under many circumstances.
  However, in a harsh environment, with no power, and an absolute need for a certain amount of flow, gravity/convection driven systems may be a whole lot more desirable.
  
  --
  Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
10. Re:Why is it different? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Errr, it *IS* a passive cooling system..
  You basically have to open a few explosive bolts on the reactor, and the reactor building along with the reactor enters passive-cooling mode using gravity and convection. The only "non-100%-passive" requirement is someone tops up the water cistern on the top of the building once in a while as it is used to cool *the building* and keep the convection going inside the building.
  It is quite a nice design actually.
  Reactors like this remain PWR because these are cheaper (building *and* cleanup) and more understood than something like molten lead. After expected 80-100 year service life, the AP-1000 pressure vessel should be the only thing is highly radioactive for few decades. Basically, work for 100 years, store for 100 years, recycle into another reactor.
11. Re:Why is it different? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  One of the issues I have heard discussed is the extreme difficulty of getting a plant approved and the more modern reactor designs approved.
  That's not a bad thing - it is a good thing. That is something that we've learned from the mistakes of the past. NRC does not want to end up with two dozen slightly different reactor types all over the place or with something that has "gotchas".
  Reactors like AP-1000 are designed for 80-100 year lifespans. You don't want to speed up approval and review by a few years and then find out that there was a minor problem that was overlooked but then you are stuck with 10 or so for the next 100 years!!
  The old designs have gotchas and everyone knows about some of them. Sometimes old is safer simply because you have experience running it.
12. Re:Why is it different? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  can you imagine if reactor generations were versioned like the Linux kernel?
  "This AP1000 version 2.6.18-308.8.1.0.1.el5 just had a station blackout, and we need to monitor the cooling systems. Hey Bob, did they reconfigure the valves for the cooling system in that version? Or was it the next one?"
  "I think it was in 2.6.18-311.7.2.0.3.el5... I'll ask someone to confirm that, but it'll take a few minutes."
13. Re:Why is it different? by AmiMoJo · 2012-12-20 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Did you even read what the GP said? "Coolant leak" implies that the coolant has gone, so no amount of natural circulation will help.
  It emerged a month or two ago that in fact the cooling system at Fukushima was damaged by the earthquake, so even if power had been available it was compromised. We don't fully understand what happened there yet.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
14. Re:Why is it different? by hackertourist · 2012-12-20 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Is it going to be standardized? In a previous /. story I read that US nuclear power plants are usually designed by an architect, so every plant ends up having a different layout from the next even if the core components are the same. In France, on the other hand, they're all built to the same design, so operating procedures etc. all transfer from one plant to the next.
15. Re:Why is it different? by HornWumpus · 2012-12-20 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  An architect? No. Nobody cares if the containment is built to the golden ratio.
  Engineers? Yes.
  Meaning it should be torn down but will not fall down.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
16. Re:Why is it different? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-12-20 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  "...and we just hope that there is no coolant leak."
  If there is a coolant leak, you just pump in more coolant. Or hava a passive reservoir supply more. If it is a REALLY major breach, you're probably SOL anyway.
17. Re:Why is it different? by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2012-12-20 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Did you even read what the GP said? "Coolant leak" implies that the coolant has gone, so no amount of natural circulation will help.
  It emerged a month or two ago that in fact the cooling system at Fukushima was damaged by the earthquake, so even if power had been available it was compromised. We don't fully understand what happened there yet.
  I did, and the design of the AP-1000, unlike Fuku's BWR design, is designed to recirculate a coolant leak within primary containment and the core. Even in Fuku's case the real issue was not the loss of coolant accident but the lack of power to recircualte it via pumps.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
18. Re:Why is it different? by dbIII · 2012-12-20 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  You standardise stuff once you've had a few trial runs and you know what works. The first ever AP1000 was supposed to be started up in China this year but I'm not sure if that happened or not, but either way, it's still very early days for this design.
Re:Better at Nukes? by Steauengeglase · 2012-12-20 04:22 · Score: 2

Boeing built a plant in N. Charleston, SC for the 787 Dreamliner seeking wages and right to work status (not to mention tax incentives). The Dreamliner has suffered from delays and electrical failure, engine and cooling problems.
Re:Better at Nukes? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:28 · Score: 0

I dunno. The GP AC could be referring to the Wright Brothers and some weird paranoid theory about their airplane flight and such. Maybe there's something floating around the internet about how they were both frauds and it was Sir Francis Bacon who really took off from Kitty Hawk, the Wright Brothers just kept crashing their aircraft over and over again, the AC has some great-grandpappy whose farm kept getting ruined by the test flights, and the Evil Bad Guys(tm) are trying to hide the truth from all you sheeple blah blah blah blah. You never know.
Or rather, that WOULD be a feasible theory if Kitty Hawk weren't in NORTH Carolina, not SOUTH. So I'm going with the thought that maybe the GP's just a complete whackjob.
Re:Better at Nukes? by ArsonSmith · 2012-12-20 04:33 · Score: 1

Something from over 100 years ago where they built an airplane that barely flew 4 flights before crashing

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Better at Nukes? by ShanghaiBill · 2012-12-20 04:40 · Score: 1

Something from over 100 years ago where they built an airplane that barely flew 4 flights before crashing
That was in North Carolina.
Re:Better at Nukes? by alexander_686 · 2012-12-20 04:42 · Score: 1

Let’s be fair – most of the issues can be traced back to Washington – both state and district.
also a certified interplanetary prospector by Thud457 · 2012-12-20 04:45 · Score: 1

Automated Digital control systems?!

I've been qualified since 1980!

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:Better at Nukes? by Antipater · 2012-12-20 04:46 · Score: 1

That plane was built in Ohio, though. Shows what you get with Union labor - four flights, then blown away by the wind!

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Touch Screen by Frankie70 · 2012-12-20 05:07 · Score: 1

I heard it has touch screens and supports multitouch.
1. Re:Touch Screen by Joe_Dragon · 2012-12-20 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  why the does the core have a popcorn button.
Re:Better at Nukes? by Dishevel · 2012-12-20 05:13 · Score: 1

Could not have been Bacon.
To be a proper revision of US history it must have been done by a woman who was half black and half native american and hailed from Mexico.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
New designs are great by SteveDorries · 2012-12-20 05:51 · Score: 1

I'm glad to see new designs being used. But why do we keep beating the Uranium drum? Thorium is cheap, it's plentiful, and a thorium based reactor can produce useful byproducts.
1. Re:New designs are great by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-12-20 08:31 · Score: 2
  
  I'm with you on that. Thorium really seems to be the way to go. Safer, simpler, more plentiful, not as prone to "nuclear proliferation" (i.e., fuel for warheads), more useful byproducts, and much less waste product.
2. Re:New designs are great by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-12-20 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  I should add that we have had experimental thorium reactors here in the U.S. in the past, and we learned at lot. And India has approved the build of a thorium reactor for electricity generation.
3. Re:New designs are great by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 00:33 · Score: 0
  
  Don't get me wrong, thorium may be the future. But it's still a long way off from being used in regular commercial reactors. I say this as being very pro-nuclear power, for its safety and environmental record.
  Most thorium reactors being built or studied are liquid fluoride thorium reactor. Molten salt reactors are not exactly my favorites, due to corrosion issues. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages
  Uranium is dirt cheap, plentiful, and proven. Our oceans alone can provide enough uranium to last the world a very very long time, and that is mostly replenished through the wonders of erosion. But even that is uneconomical as conventionally mined uranium is much cheaper. Honestly, I'd only recommend a push for thorium after a couple decades of running a handful of quasi experimental commercial-grid thorium reactors.
Re:Better at Nukes? by ColdWetDog · 2012-12-20 05:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

How about just being reasonable. The 787 is having the same sorts of problems that every new plane gets.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
What-Could-Possibly-Go-Wrong by srobert · 2012-12-20 06:19 · Score: 0

South Carolina, Nuclear Plant.
This should have a what-could-possibly-go-wrong tag.
1. Re:What-Could-Possibly-Go-Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 16:59 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, let's make fun of South Carolina. After all, they're actually doing something and you're just being a smart-ass. Is there a technology equivalent term for hipster?
Simpsons reference? by sunderland56 · 2012-12-20 06:22 · Score: 1

37 comments and no Homer Simpson reference? Slashot is slipping.
1. Re:Simpsons reference? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  37 comments and no Homer Simpson reference? Slashot is slipping.
  Who's that?
2. Re:Simpsons reference? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 17:00 · Score: 0
  
  The Simpsons was a popular show from a time gone by when anti-nuclear groups ran rampant. I am glad it has finished and I don't think it will be missed much.
mr burns is to cheap to have a internet link to th by Joe_Dragon · 2012-12-20 07:01 · Score: 1

mr burns is to cheap to have a internet link to the plant.
Long haul? by Quila · 2012-12-20 08:01 · Score: 2

To be fair, it was only three years from submission to approval and publishing in the register, not bad really. But then Westinghouse submitted several revisions over the succeeding years, triggering more reviews and approvals.
Why not solar? by angel'o'sphere · 2012-12-20 08:08 · Score: 1

If they habe the money to build two nuclear plants, why can't they build a solae thermal one? A molten salt based ne that also generates energy over night?

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
1. Re:Why not solar? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 00:40 · Score: 0
  
  Because solar is not absolutely steady for decades on end and doesn't produce nearly the same amount of electricity. And molten salt is a lot harder to deal with than you'd think.
  That is the equivalent of asking why one would buy a semi-trailer truck instead of a Prius. Sure, the Prius is a very nice car. It can get you from point A to point B in comfort and in an economical manner. But it'd be unpleasant to try to move large amounts of cargo in one. Everything has its own time and place.
2. Re:Why not solar? by olau · 2012-12-21 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it's a valid point. I don't know about the cost in the US, but I've seen figures for European nuclear plants to be built (we'll se if it actually happens), and they end up being a lot more expensive than wind turbines per kWh (probably similar for solar if you are a bit closer to equator than we are in Scandinavia) because the whole thing is so damn complex.
  Now before someone chimes in with "base load", remember that consumption isn't flat like the output of a nuclear plant. Meaning that either you can only use nuclear power for a smaller part of the total required electricity, or you will have to have the power stations go idle (in the summer or in the winter or at night depending on location) meaning no income = higher cost per kWh. Or you need storage, just like you do with intermittent sources like solar and wind.
  People laugh at the decision of the Germans to eventually close their nuclear plants and not replace them, but fact is that new nuclear is a lot more expensive than people seem to think. Perhaps because people look at old plants where the huge initial capital costs have long been sunk.
Re:Better at Nukes? by Quila · 2012-12-20 08:11 · Score: 2

The South Carolina plant has nothing to do with the delays or other problems, having only opened last year. Boeing only delivered the first SC-built 787 a couple months ago, and no special problems have been found. Manufacture of components is around the world, final assembly was exclusively in unionized Washington for the first Dreamliners. That's the source of the issues you mentioned, including delays due to a union strike in Washington.
The problem the unions have with the SC plant is that they won't get their member dues and commensurate increased political power.
lol by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 08:14 · Score: 0

Well..... if their reactors are anything like their electronics we all gonna die.
improvements by swschrad · 2012-12-20 11:14 · Score: 1

among them are reduced need for pumping water to cool the AP1000, it is claimed that in shutdown, as long as there is water in the machine, it convectively cools without pumping.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
critical training test #1: by swschrad · 2012-12-20 11:16 · Score: 1

pass: run a 4-minute mile.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Re:Better at Nukes? by Steauengeglase · 2012-12-21 03:34 · Score: 1

Sorry, I didn't intend to sound critical, just guessing the most likely reason for the plane comment (unless the GP really was talking about the Wright Bros).
i have a question by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 04:33 · Score: 0

why do they call it "nuclear power plant"?
in reality it mostly makes toxic garbage that last forever. sure, on the side it also makes some
electricity.
1 kilo of uranium gets turned into everlasting super toxic garbage and on the side 1 million people get to watch TV for one evening ..lol.
"a new breed of toxic waste generator operators are being trained in the usa..."