Slashdot Mirror
Surry Nuclear Reactors To Extend Lifespan To 80 Years (richmond.com)
QuantumPion writes: Dominion Virginia Power today will formally seek a second license extension for its Surry nuclear power plant, becoming the first utility in the U.S. to try to push the operating range for nuclear reactors to 80 years. If successful, the utility's pair of reactors in Surry County would be eligible to operate past 2050. The Surry plant, along with its North Anna sister site in Louisa County, were initially granted 40-year permits and operate today on 20-year renewals. Those two plants provide about 40 percent of Virginia's electricity.
If you looked at the figures of deaths per terawatt of nuclear compared to the next item on the list (wind), it will be obvious where nuclear power's place is. Just those figures alone should make people reconsider nuclear power as a core energy source.
Why compare them? Wind and solar cannot replace nuclear. The only replacement is coal.
From a business perspective it is cheaper to ask for an extension than to spend the money to build a new one. It is economics. And all the red tape associated with a new plant and the anti-nuke fear factor makes the decision even easier.
It's all about NIMBY. People who don't have nukes in their backyard will fight to keep them away because they fear what they don't understand. They also have more to lose. For people who already live near nuke plants, if their property values were going to go down because of the plant, it has already happened.
The plants that are already there have been safe for decades and people are used to them. It's also very difficult for anti-nukes to call for a plant with a safe record to shutdown because they get less traction suggesting that a plant that has been safe for decades is somehow a looming menace.
Of course, when a Chernobyl or Fukushima happens, then the fear level can be ramped up enough to deny extensions for even safely operating plants with a good record.
The logic being that the deaths are *caused* by resistance to constructing newer, so power plants have had to do their best to extend the serviceable life of less safe reactors. It'd be one thing if the result were *shutting down* the reactors and not building new ones, but here we have the worst of both worlds, no newer reactors with safer designs, but still running older ones that are actually the problem. Newer designs engineer to address some of the most dangerous aspects.
Now I'm not sure I buy into the logic. A nuclear power plant being constructed, refit, or even being decommissioned is a huge expense. I suspect if the power companies really wanted the ability to spend their money building new reactors, they would have been able to. It seems likely the 'anti-nuke' sentiment is a convenient excuse for not spending money. For evidence, they have not been forced to shut down their current reactors, which would have happened if anti-nuke sentiment were really that potent.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Yes it is that bad. Imagine having to replace 40% of your electric load generation for Virginia. This is done with 2 nuke plants, probably 5-10 coal plants, or covering the state in solar panels and going dark at night. Now I can't build a new plant - no permitting has been allowed out of the NRC since 3 mile island happened in the late 70s, you can't shut them down or the state goes dark (heck that is probably close to 1/2% of the power generated in the whole country). You have a small group of people that have made building new/retrofiting old reactors a non starter so we are left with 50 year old reactors powering our country for the foreseeable future. The smart thing to do would be to build modern reactors to decommission old reactors, leading to safer electricity and fewer pollutants in our environment.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
So your theory is they didn't know what they were doing and overbuilt?
If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would stop embarrassing yourself.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
This has nothing to do with anti-nuclear campaigning, and everything to do with getting maximum return from the investment in the plant. Why spend billions building s new plant when you can keep the old one running for a fraction of that?
Until a new plant will cost less / make more money, they will of course try to keep the old one going.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
As someone who works in the wholesale power industry, the problem is more complex.
We are in a unique period of overcapacity, as new technologies are displacing the old. Nuclear capital costs of new construction are astronomical, which is why in the deregulated open markets of the USA, new construction is natural gas powered and government backed wind. The wind is being build in areas of the country (Illinois) that were historically heavy industry (pre existing ehv transmission), but with factory load moving overseas, the Midwest has more generation than demand. The energy is being bottled due to lack of transmission investment, which is leading to negative wholesale pricing. That's great for consumers, terrible for base load nuclear. New nuclear is being built at an existing site in a regulated southern state, where the costs can be passed on to consumers in the rate base.