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.
Thank you so much anti-nuke extremists. Thanks to your inability to look at the bigger picture, we get to enjoy nuclear reactors using designs from the 1950's well into the 21st century instead of actually using safer, modern designs.
It's like if the safety problems with the Corvair had been used to shutdown all production of newer car models.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
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.
The number of death associated to nuclear accidents is so small I would consider it a statistical fluke. In 2013, NASA calculated that "global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas"
I like quoting Einstein. Know why? Because nobody dares contradict you.
no permitting has been allowed out of the NRC since 3 mile island happened in the late 70s,
Actually it has, it's just that we were just getting around to it - some new reactors are coming online this year. However, they were made at already existing plants, IE adding another reactor to an already existing nuclear power plant, and worse, it's the old design - they finished up a reactor that had construction suspended back in the '80s.
That being said, in order to keep nuclear power plant ages 'reasonable', you're looking at that we should be completing 4-8 reactors/plants a year. 200 reactors for current power needs, 400 to 'green up' our power by eliminating coal. Estimates, which is why I'm only being single digit specific. 200 plants, 4 built a year, gives you an average lifespan of 50 years. Probably means that you'd have a few shut down at 10,20, and 30, such that the maximum age at plants without earlier problems discovered would be around 60 years, in order to compensate for the 'lemon' reactors that have to be shut down early.
I don't read AC A human right
They need this. Dominion has a significant number of older (built in late '50's and early '60's) coal fired plants, which are all being shut down over the next couple of years because they cannot be brought up to a high enough standard to meet the new EPA requirements. They are also shutting down an 800 MWe oil fired unit built in the 1970s, because of the new EPA requirements and because it's not very economical to operate any more (it was only being used for peaking and to supply base load if one of the nuclear plants was shut down for service). We already depend on those nuclear plants for base load and we will be leaning on them more in the future
Dominion submitted an application to add a third reactor to the North Anna site in 2007. It's been in review since then. As I understand it, the plan is to put in a third generation ESBWR that will nearly double the North Anna site's output. The reactor design was finally approved late 2014. Hopefully they'll get site approval to start construction soon.
is that the results linger. They'll be cancer victims out of Fukushima for decades. Or maybe not. It's hard to say. Too many people have a vested interest in both camps to be sure how many will get cancer from the disaster.
The other problem nuclear has is that it while safety is cheap per MW it's expensive as hell on the balance sheet. At least in America we've got a long history of privatizing things to hand off the profits to somebody's brother in law. But sooner or later inflation bites into their profits and they start cutting corners....
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Thank you so much pro-nuke extremists. Thanks to your inability to look at reality you overlooked that placement of Nuclear facilities is governed by a Suitability Criteria that is an act of law.
It's pretty ridiculous to think greenpeace, hippys in combi vans, NIMBYS or any one else for that matter has any influence at all as all of their concerns are addressed in Section C.9. Pointing fingers is just a way to ignore the process and economics involved in proposing and building a Nuclear Reactor. It is a complete ad hom argument when it is made.
Especially when you consider there has been a bunch of GenIII reactors proposed. So I don't understand how their or anyone else's vision has anything to do with what reactor technology is deployed.
It's like the safety problems with the Corvair had been left in the production of newer car and they added some new untested features but they think it's better.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.