Slashdot Mirror
Watts Bar Unit 2 Is The First New US Nuclear Reactor In Decades (washingtonpost.com)
tomhath writes from a report via The Washington Post: The Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Watts Bar Unit 2 is the first nuclear reactor to come online since 1996, when the Watts Bar Unit 1 started operations. The new reactor is designed to add 1,150 megawatts of electricity generating capacity to southeastern Tennessee. By summer's end, authorities expect the new reactor at this complex along the Chickamauga Reservoir, a dammed section of the Tennessee River extending northward from Chattanooga, to steadily generate enough electricity to power 650,000 homes. But while nuclear reactors account for the lion's share of the carbon-free electricity generated in the United States, the industry faces this new set of circumstances in a state of near-crisis. A combination of very cheap natural gas and deregulated energy markets in some states has led to a growing number of plant closures in recent years. A new report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance says that renewable energy, including solar, wind and hydroelectric will overtake natural gas as an energy source by 2027.
n/t
They couldn't squeeze another 60MW out of the design?
Its good to see new reactors come online, but I wish we had the balls to licence new reactor designs that are passively safe.
But while nuclear reactors account for the lion's share of the carbon-free electricity generated in the United States, the industry faces this new set of circumstances in a state of near-crisis. A combination of very cheap natural gas and deregulated energy markets in some states has led to a growing number of plant closures in recent years.
Meanwhile, the federal government continues to massively over-regulate nuclear energy and does other brain-dead things. For example, if you operate a coal power plant and do nothing other than routine maintenance, then you are grandfathered to whatever environmental standards were in effect when it went into operation. On the other hand, if you decide to make "major" improvements, the entire operation must now come into compliance with current regulations. Naturally, operators are lining up to upgrade and increase the cost/regulatory burden of their operations. Not!
Thankfully, natural gas is relatively clean, but it won't last forever. Our broken policies have resulted in nobody wanting to touch the best energy source in modern history (nuclear) and while the government and environmentalists continue tripping over themselves to throw wads of cash at companies in the "renewable" space, those old coal power plants continue to emit more radioactive contaminants then even the oldest nuclear power plants because we actually make it more expensive for the operators to fix it than to just leave it as is. To top it off, rather then devoting serious effort into spent nuclear fuel reprocessing (like into a form usable in modern reactor designs), we keep loading it in leaky drums and burying it in the ground because nobody will build a new reactor because nobody wants to spend 100 years and $100B to get a new reactor going.
I wouldn't want one near me :) Going green sounds less appealing when its glowing :P
Good job TVA finally bringing another nuclear reactor online. It's clean, it's safe, and it's advanced.
Shame on slashdot "editor" BeauHD for adding in the unrelated story about renewable energy overtaking natural gas.
DID YOU BOTHER TO READ THE SUBMITTED ARTICLE???
Seriously nice article today about Sourceforge and Slashdot Media all improving must have missed that there are people running the show who can't read.
http://arstechnica.com/informa...
E
It is sad that our newest reactor is a 50+ year old PWR design. Stop the insanity and build small breeder reactors.
Just 60 more gigawatts and it could time travel!
Watts Bar Unit 2 Is The First New US Nuclear Reactor In Decades
Does this statement mean that this reactor has no foreign [manufactured] parts?
Heck, we afterall rely on the Russians when it comes to space travel now. Just want to know whether all components of this reator are US of A designed and made.
By summer's end, authorities expect the new reactor at this complex along the Chickamauga Reservoir, a dammed section of the Tennessee River
Is it an ominous sign that I had to read that 3 times before realizing it did not say, "... a damned section of the Tennessee River?"
(And I'm pretty pro-nuclear-power).
The ironic thing is, this radioactive "waste" clearly still has lots of potential energy in it, or else it wouldn't be dangerous in the first place.
IMO, what's needed is a process to use this stuff after it's no longer suitable for use in the original reactor.
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure there are other reactor designs that would allow building smaller scale power generators that run on this waste material, instead of trying to bury it, shoot it into space, or what-not.
Breeder reactors were outlawed by Democrat President Carter in 1977 because the Uranium refining process also produced Plutonium that might be used in nuclear weapons. Another case where government used public hysteria to direct energy policy, sort of like regulating coal and shale gas to death in favor of politically connected battery solar and wind power, but that's none of my business.
Still a timebomb waiting to explode and render thousands of square miles uninhabitable. Absolutely hilarious anyone thinks it's a good idea.
IMO, what's needed is a process to use this stuff after it's no longer suitable for use in the original reactor.
Fuel reprocessing is a filthy and very expensive process. It is much cheaper to just use a "once through" fuel cycle, even if it appears to be inefficient to people that are bad at economics.
I'm pretty sure there are other reactor designs that would allow building smaller scale power generators that run on this waste material
Thorium salt reactors. You can basically use them as garbage disposals, and dump in uranium reactor waste and byproducts, and the ThSR will burn them up. The US and Europe are doing much with thorium salt reactors, but China and India are pursuing them.
are we going to get our three breasted hookers until the aliens get here?
Nevada is already losing revenue thanks to the native american casinos, think of how much they could drive it up with three titted mutant hookers!
You don't have to be but at least average level of general knowledge that you'd get out of reading one Reader's Digest article would kind of help before posting. The Harford web site has a bit about waste and how they make MOX fuel from some of the waste that may get you up to speed instead of pretending that nuclear waste does not exist and that it's all potential fuel.
Fuel reprocessing is a filthy and very expensive process. It is much cheaper to just use a "once through" fuel cycle, even if it appears to be inefficient to people that are bad at economics.
Fuel reprocessing is less expensive than refining an entirely new batch of Uranium for use in the reactors. It just costs more because you need to design and build your reactor specifically to be a breeder reactor, as opposed to the simpler, standard design.
As for filthy, you are aware that this actually REDUCES waste, by reusing almost all of the material? In other words, by reusing the radioactive "waste", it is far cleaner than standard reactors.
There was a bit of a scam going on at the time taking advantage of the government offer to buy all Plutonium produced. That's the core of the story. Besides there is still Plutonium being produced in the USA anyway by a military owned facility so the ban has plenty of loopholes and can be repealed if needed anyway.
The ironic thing is, this radioactive "waste" clearly still has lots of potential energy in it, or else it wouldn't be dangerous in the first place. IMO, what's needed is a process to use this stuff after it's no longer suitable for use in the original reactor.
There was. A burner reactor called IFR. Research on the *operational* prototype was killed by Clinton and it's demolition was funded in the 2005 Energy Act signed into law by W.Bush. From everything I read about it (despite the lack of material technologies required) it was a remarkable success able to consume weapons grade material and DU. My main interest in it was from the perspective of nuclear disarmament and a way to make those materials useful in another way.
I'm pretty sure there are other reactor designs that would allow building smaller scale power generators that run on this waste material
Well in IFR's case it was an Integrated facility that would reprocess, store and burn wastes. The 2005 Energy act also funds research into some of the things IFR could do like produce electriciy and hydrogen for vehicle fuel (which would mean the current fleet of vehicles would still function) but where would that leave the oil and coal industry? You really only have to look to their lobbying efforts of both sides of politics to under why such a technology will never come to market even if it is proven technology.
Oil and Coal interests would prefer any advancement in Nuclear technology remain unavailable and that all the blame be attributable to greenpeace and NIMBYs.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
blamed for no new nukes
You don't need a breeder (which are dangerous for far more reasons than proliferation) to clean up nuclear waste, you just need fuel reprocessing. The only time the US tried reprocessing it ended up one of the most contaminated sites in the US. That is why Carter banned reprocessing in any form, its an environmental and OSHA disaster of epic proportions. Hanford and Oak ridge are still contaminated from barely 3 years of minor industrial reprocessing and they've spent billions to try to clean them up. There is a stream at one of the sites (can't remember if it's Hanford or Oak Ridge) that's still got so many radioactive isotopes in it that its not safe to even put your feet in the water.
Any form of fuel reprocessing is just plain dangerous. You're operating chemical processes, often using highly corrosive acids and bases with radioactive and highly dangerous isotopes, the kind of processes that turn things like Cobalt 60 into gases and that if you take even one breath of it you will get a lethal dose of radiation.
So are we just ignoring the fact that Greenpeace has been consistently blocking nuclear plants for decades? We're just going to ignore this inconvenient truth?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Google for it, many of them have changed positions and the roles have flipped.
So are we just ignoring the fact that Greenpeace has been consistently blocking nuclear plants for decades?
No, I don't think you are ignoring it, just not paying attention to what is relevant. It takes a few hours of research and checking the governing laws to see that this greenpeace/NIMBY argument is bogus and the vitrol attached to it is noise that deflects from blaming the real culprits impeding nuclear progress, the oil and coal industry.
We're just going to ignore this inconvenient truth?
Well that dogma is the common myth. I think you will find that the oil and coal lobby have far more influence over US energy policy than greenpeace ever will. As I pointed out in this post the oil and coal industry shape energy policy to suit themselves. Greenpeace certainly has had no influence over the 15 GenIII reactors proposed for the US and the link to their placement is in that post. Go see for yourself, I've also provided the sections in the Energy policy act that you should examine.
I think that truth is probably more inconvenient than many.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Don't forget the CANDU. Those suckers will burn anything.
The main issue with IFR was the cost. The technology isn't cost competitive with other forms of nuclear power, let alone other clean forms of energy. It's just very hard to justify the investment at a time when most developed countries are trying to transition away from nuclear.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Nearly everything you said is inaccurate or completely incorrect.
Citation? Tell us why he is wrong. If not your just a shill.
I cannot agree with you
The lawsuits regularly filed by Greenpeace have become a significant part of the cost that must be considered in building a new nuclear plant
This has had a significant impact, along with the many followers of Greenpeace who are coached in the most fundamental misunderstandings of nuclear power by the organization
Widespread ignorance spread by Greenpeace has done more to cause global warming than any other single influence in America today
The main issue with IFR was the cost. The technology isn't cost competitive with other forms of nuclear power, let alone other clean forms of energy.
That's why I said (despite the lack of material technologies required) that make the reactor only viable for 60 years at most. I am not saying it is commercially feasible, just that it exist(ed) because we always hear these "if only" questions.
Financial debt can be written off, but energetic debt cannot and that is the main reason IFR is not feasible with existing materials technology.
It's just very hard to justify the investment at a time when most developed countries are trying to transition away from nuclear.
Indeed. My point is that people blame greenpeace and NIMBYs for the lack of technological development in Nuclear power when it is ample. They blame them for the lack of funding when if you look in the act it is right there, it just hasn't been utilized. They blame them for all sorts of things however if they took some time to examine the funding and regulatory mechanisms of nuclear power they would find that these issues lay at the root of the laws that govern the funding of nuclear power.
The nuclear industry has become a boondoggle for the oil and coal industry to raid US taxpayers billions of dollars via the deregulation of utilities and one has to look no further than the 2005 energy act to see that, the evidence is all there. If you are interested check it out, and look at the repeal of the PUCHA at the end which is a core 'new deal' act put in place after the US depression. That is what the nuclear industry refers to as 'deregulation' and oil and coal refer to as 'opportunity'.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I cannot agree with you
You're not arguing with me, you are arguing with the facts.
The lawsuits regularly filed by Greenpeace have become a significant part of the cost that must be considered in building a new nuclear plant
No they are not. All delays to nuclear projects receive government compensation, no matter how they occur. It is ludicrous to even suggest that greenpeace has the billions of dollars of resources the government has to overcome the funding set out in the act.
This has had a significant impact, along with the many followers of Greenpeace who are coached in the most fundamental misunderstandings of nuclear power by the organization
That has very little to do with the way the 2005 Energy act is laid out. What you are saying is that greenpeace has somehow lobbied congress in the drafting of the act to favour oil and coal interests. If you look at the facts what you are saying doesn't even make sense. I implore you to download and examine the 2005 Energy Act and you will be able to verify what I have said is true.
Widespread ignorance spread by Greenpeace has done more to cause global warming than any other single influence in America today
As I have said, that dogma is the common myth. The mining and use of oil and coal reserves and their continued use has done more to cause global warming than any other single influence anywhere.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
If there's ever a fatality from a nuclear reactor going boom, it will hopefully be you.