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.

9 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Great Scott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They couldn't squeeze another 60MW out of the design?

  2. Long time coming by monkeyman.kix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its good to see new reactors come online, but I wish we had the balls to licence new reactor designs that are passively safe.

    1. Re:Long time coming by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are. Vogtle 3 & 4 are going to use the AP1000 design from Westinghouse which is a Generation III reactor. It stores emergency coolant water in a tank over the reactor so you do not need to use pumps to cool the reactor in an emergency.

  3. Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gotta disagree with you, if Nuclear power was regulated with the same lax attitude as Coal, then we would be facing a lot of issues with radiation.

      Just look at Fukushima where a tendency to rely on boards of people for decisions allowed them to ignore engineers who had clearly explained the risks of the low sea walls.

      If we let the same ass-hats, that regularly kill their own people by disabling methane detection systems and intentionally undercutting mine supports, self-regulate nukes... then I would have a hard time supporting that power source

      The US NRC has proven itself to be demanding of the industry and capable of ensuring that we do not face frequent, or even repeated hazards to public health.

    2. Re: Meanwhile ... by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now that Harry Reid is leaving we might actually be able to bury nuclear fuel in Nevada.

    3. Re: Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now that it's past 1999, though, it's safe to bury it on the moon.

  4. Old design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is sad that our newest reactor is a 50+ year old PWR design. Stop the insanity and build small breeder reactors.

  5. Re:"US reactor" What exactly does that mean? by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. Gas can do electricity at less than half that, wind is at 4cents and solar will be cheaper than gas by 2020. Why would you build a power plant that produces power at 2-4 times the price of other sources? Because the only ones that are building these new nukes are the ones that are forcing their rate payers to pick up the cost.

    Without a public utilities commission that's willing to bend their rate payers over and fuck them good and dry, a nuke isn't even feasible. And it's astonishing that there are two states willing to let their utility companies fuck their residents six ways to Sunday. If I was a rate payer in Georgia I'd be fucking livid that I'm being committed to paying 2 times the price for power for the remainder of my life unless I move.