No more nuclear power for the US?

[BazBear]

We in Vermont have a nuclear plant, Vermont Yankee, that delivers about 1/3 of the state's electricity cheaply and cleanly. It seems our local "NIMBY environmentalists" hate everything about it. Nothing is ever perfectly safe, come on, life is a freakin' crap shoot everyday, but I prefer not dumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over mainly misplaced worries about a nuclear plant and nuclear waste.

Wind farms have had a tough go of it here as well (but more for the same reasons mobile phone coverage is spotty in VT, "you'll ruin my view with your tower(s) )

It seems many people here think the electricity will just generate itself.

 

[Cleon]

Yeah, I saw that. Georgia, too. And South Carolina.


But I searched in vain for anything that showed the plants are actually being built. And between getting a contract to build a nuclear power plant and having it actually generate power, there stands a host of people who hate any kind of power plant, but who hold a special hatred for nuclear ones.

Well, Georgia Power only got legislative approval within the past few days to bump up rates in order to pay for it*.

Construction is scheduled to begin in 2011, and end in 2017. As far as I'm aware, the only thing that could possibly stop it at this point is if the state Public Service Commission says "no." And that's not very likely.


(* On a side note: *grumble* *gripe* *snarl*)

 

[Roadtoad]

Well, Georgia Power only got legislative approval within the past few days to bump up rates in order to pay for it*.

Construction is scheduled to begin in 2011, and end in 2017. As far as I'm aware, the only thing that could possibly stop it at this point is if the state Public Service Commission says "no." And that's not very likely.


(* On a side note: *grumble* *gripe* *snarl*)

Never underestimate the stupidity of large groups.

 

[Cleon]

Never underestimate the stupidity of large groups.

All levels of the state government, including the PSC, have been bending over backwards to give Georgia Power everything they want for this project. The biggest controversy to date hasn't been whether to build the new reactors, but allowing Georgia Power to raise rates to pay for it. That passed, so it's pretty much all but certain that construction will go forward.

For the PSC to block things now would be a major reversal, and the opposition just doesn't have the numbers or power to make any sort of waves.

I only wish the state government would show this sort of commitment when it comes to solving the water crisis.

 

[Beerina]

This is truly wrong. Shame on Obama. More of the same fear mongering regarding nuclear power and more of the same refusal to acknowledge anything but feel good energy.

Perhaps you people are confused as to what an election is. It's about gaining power, and so the most profitable route with that in mind is heaving out blather that people can get worked up about to get them on your side. Once you have the power, you can ease back and not do much of it because it was either stupid to begin with (hydro dam bans) or not worth the political fight. In many cases, planks are never intended to be carried out.

 

[Roadtoad]

Perhaps you people are confused as to what an election is. It's about gaining power, and so the most profitable route with that in mind is heaving out blather that people can get worked up about to get them on your side. Once you have the power, you can ease back and not do much of it because it was either stupid to begin with (hydro dam bans) or not worth the political fight. In many cases, planks are never intended to be carried out.

Which is precisely the reason why you always look at the record of those who want political office. That tells you far more than the plank ever will.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The new strategy will be thorium piles pumped by neutron beams to actually transmute the waste. Was talking with several friends from a national lab about this the other day. Much better than burial.

Really? That's very interesting. Got a link on that?

 

[MattusMaximus]

It's crystal-clear what Reid is saying here: If storing nuclear waste at a place as remote, as desolate, as geologically stable as Yucca Mountain threatens the health and safety of millions of Americans, then there is no safe place to store it.

I agree completely with BPSCG on this particular point. It seems to me that both Reid and Obama are simply kowtowing to the NIMBY sentiment in Nevada for political reasons. The real problem is the stark ignorance among the U.S. population regarding nuclear power - the goddamn "Three Mile Island" incident with subsequent spin & negative PR has damaged public sentiment about nuke energy in a bad way here.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I hate to interject facts in here, but Westinghouse is busy working on new AP1000 units for the US. Whether we like it or not, nuclear is resuming.

Good. We need it. Linky

 

[Travis]

I've never understood why Nevada is so against Yucca Mountain. I mean it's being built next to a freaking nuclear test site! They blew up hundreds of actual nuclear bombs there but it is the storage of non-exploding waste deep underground that scares them?

What the hell?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Nuclear is the cleanest energy source we have today, and it's being completely ignored. I said during the campaign that Obama was against nuclear energy, his strategy will be to commission study after study on it until he leaves office.

How is nuclear cleaner than solar, wind, or hydroelectric?

 

[BenBurch]

No, you are thinking storage.

We will BURN it.

Take a thorium pile and have a port you pass in waste containers. The pile makes net energy, running a sterling engine or similar with cooling gas, likely Nitrogen, and you degrade the waste until you are at a element with low radioactivity.

We have LOTS of thorium, and we accelerator folks know just how to make the neutron beam to pump it.

Fermi (near Chicago) is an ideal place to pilot this technology.

We in Illinois seem to have to lead the rest of y'all into the next new nuclear technology all the time. When are the rest of you going to catch up, eh?

 

[BPSCG]

Take a thorium pile and have a port you pass in waste containers. The pile makes net energy, running a sterling engine or similar with cooling gas, likely Nitrogen, and you degrade the waste until you are at a element with low radioactivity.

That all sounds like English, but leaves me scratching my head. So as MattusMaximus asked, do you have a link?

Fermi (near Chicago) is an ideal place to pilot this technology.

Pilot? Is this a proven technology?

 

[WildCat]

Well, the article seems to be talking specifically about the Yucca Mountain project, not nuclear power in general. However, personally, I view dropping the YM program as a bad idea. I certainly hope this isn't a harbinger of an anti-nuke policy...

It's the weasel way out of being against nuclear power without admitting it.

Bury the waste in Yucca Mountain, it's the middle of a desert and it will be a desert for the next 250,000 years most likely, or however long it takes for the California mountains to erode away.

Right now we're storing it on site in heavily populated areas, I challenge anybody to prove that's less dangerous than burying it under a mountain in the middle of a desert wasteland.

 

[BenBurch]

Do I have a link, no. Very little has been published. Carlo Rubbia has been talking this idea up for quite some time. The physics works. All that is needed is a pilot plant to demonstrate that it is practical.

 

[WildCat]

How is nuclear cleaner than solar, wind, or hydroelectric?

Far smaller footprint, works 24 hours a day, doesn't depend on the weather, doesn't pose a hazard to migrating birds, doesn't destroy fish migration patterns, doesn't halt the flow of silt to barrier islands, doesn't require 10 years to put out more energy than it took to make it.

 

[joobz]

It's the weasel way out of being against nuclear power without admitting it.

Bury the waste in Yucca Mountain, it's the middle of a desert and it will be a desert for the next 250,000 years most likely, or however long it takes for the California mountains to erode away.

Right now we're storing it on site in heavily populated areas, I challenge anybody to prove that's less dangerous than burying it under a mountain in the middle of a desert wasteland.

In Defense of Nevada, Major trouble with the Yucca mountain solution is the transportation. Getting it across statelines in a economically AND Safe feasible manner is limiting.

And there have been groups in each state who have blocked transport of the fuel across lines.

I hope anti-Nukers realize that they are also causing Massive trouble for reasearchers as well. radiolabeling is a easy/safe method of tracing materials for many different studies, but universities are having a harder and harder time finding places to send waste.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

We have LOTS of thorium, and we accelerator folks know just how to make the neutron beam to pump it.

You're right about the abundance of thorium, Ben. Thorium will be as cheap as dirt for roughly the next 50,000 years.

But you don't need a fancy-schmancy star drek phaser cannon to make it burn. All you need is a neutron-rich reactor that allows you to stagger the insertion and removal of fuel bundles.

Just start 'er up on a regular U-235 fuel cycle then gradually swap in Th-232 bundles and let neutron flux do the rest.

 

[technoextreme]

This is disappointing.


Nuclear + Electric vehicles = rapid decrease in Oil dependancy and reduced CO2 output.

Certainly I have hopes for Solar to be the "final solution", but we need a practical approach and if we want it fast, we need something proven.

That is the stupidest thing I've read in a while. One half of that equation is missing, nonexisistant, and a pipe dream at this point.

I am not sanguine. Google "Shoreham nuclear" and see why not.

Shoreham nuclear is the perfect example of moronic planning. How do you build nuclear reactors on an island where you can't evacuate the population easily?

 

[The Painter]

That is the stupidest thing I've read in a while. One half of that equation is missing, nonexisistant, and a pipe dream at this point.

OK, I'll bite. Which half?


Pssssssssst. spell check is your friend. nonexisistant=nonexistent