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.
I think that he was referring to the family of Thorium reactors, which the US has no plans to build in the US and is only "partnering" with China's efforts
Having water above the reactor is just an adaptation of an existing design and an attempt to milk more money out of out-dated technology
When was the last time that you bought a 20 year old computer system because they added a nifty new cooler to it?
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.
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.
If wind is so cheap why do we continue to subsidize it?
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
It's not NIMBY that stops nukes. It's an electricity price of 14 cents/kwh and that's with the government providing free insurance.
Have you thought about why the government is providing insurance? Nuclear power reactors have a history of getting their license revoked by that same government for seemingly no reason. No insurance company is going to insure that because there are simply too many unknowns, the biggest one is the government itself. No bank will lend money for any construction project unless it is insured, nuclear power plants included. To make sure the government won't pull a license on a whim the other investors require some government monetary stake in the project. This means that everyone involved wants to see the government pay for the project if they pull the license.
Few other industries work this way because few other industries have such long construction times and such a high rate of construction licenses getting pulled in the middle of the project. The high cost of nuclear power is because the government has a history of changing the rules. If the government didn't keep changing the rules then the price would come down. Any project that takes longer than the two year election cycle to complete runs the risk of the rules changing. Part of the reason these nuclear power plants take so long to complete is because the rules keep changing. The longer a project goes on the more expensive it becomes.
The cost, the long completion times, and the need for government insurance is all because the federal government cannot make up its mind on what the rules are for nuclear power. This will continue so long as we have a major political party that is openly hostile to nuclear power.
Then one might feel compelled to ask, why would any political party oppose nuclear power? Perhaps it is because of the high costs and long completion times. In other words, we have politicians that oppose nuclear power solely based on the problems they created for it.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.