First NRC approval of a new nuclear power facility in 30 years (though technically its an expansion of an existing plant). In Georgia, supposed to be online as early as 3 to 4 years from now.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2017464999_apusnuclearpower.html
Before I say “Yay!” does anyone know what design it is?
There are several applications under review in the NRC list. In the next two years there could be over a dozen new units approved.
The license just OKed is for Vogtle, which is for 2 new Westinghouse - AP1000s.
I’m in favor of this- the benefits outweigh the drawbacks if you’re responsible with things.
Why are people not researching fast breeders? It seems insane to use such a small percentage of the potential energy in uranium, as well as the benefits of producing less persistently radioactive wastes. But if the research isn’t there, the designs will stagnate in terms of safety and efficiency.
Wheeeeeeee
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In the land of Nimby, we all end up in the fucking dark.
I’m marginally in favor of this. It’s true that a full failure can be catastrophic, as we’ve recently seen, and we have no good way of getting rid of, nor fully sequestering the radioactive waste. But that’s still preferable to just tossing our waste products unto the atmosphere with nary a care.
I’m enthused by this, but I’m wondering just how many snags and delays and NIMBY protest BS will hold this up along the way. Four years seems awfully optimistic.
In pa, we have quite a few nuclear plants. We also have the site of the only nuclear accident in the us. And frankly, nuclear plants aren’t a bad thing to have in your back yard. I’d take a nuclear plant over a coal plant any day of the week.
Dear Gods yes. Coal plants are disastrous. If we were serious about the environment, we’d be busting our asses to shut down coal plants across the world.
Hmmm wasnt there a discussion here about nuclear power waayyyy before Fukushima? Nope, no risk in using nuclear power AT ALL!
Tschernobyl? Well that was a Plant not up to western standards… Fukushima? Well to near to the Ocean… What will the next excuse be?
Beware of the deadly coal particles. You don’t see them, you don’t hear them, you don’t smell them.
Here’s a picture report of current tech coal plant technology:
http://www.gkm.de/projekt_block_9/block_9_aktuell/?page=1
Of course there’s a risk, as there is with everything. You have to balance that risk against your needs and the energy options. Japan had quite a significant risk with its location on a major faultline, but it had few options. So it built nuclear plants to withstand the massive earthquakes that hit the island.
Tschernobyl? Well that was a Plant not up to western standards… Fukushima? Well to near to the Ocean… What will the next excuse be?
Fukushima didn’t fail because it was too near the ocean, but because the country was hit by the biggest earthquake in Japanese history. In fact the fifth biggest earthquake in the world’s recorded history. And a tsunami. Let’s not forget the tsunami. Because it wasn’t really the earthquake that caused the Fukushima catastrophe, but the tsunami, with waves over 40m, that hit the country AFTER their most powerful earthquake ever.
And despite the magnitude of the catastrophe that was the earthquake and tsunami, it was only this very old design that had significant problems - a design that was about to be fazed out. The other reactors, like they had done previously, held up.
Germany, not in an earthquake zone and with reactors nowhere near the sea, decided to shut down those reactors. This has resulted in Germany importing power from nuclear France, setting out on projects to build power lines through the beautiful Harz mountains (to transport environmentally friendly wind power to the power starved south) and an ambitious program of new coal and gas fired plants.
Coal fired plants. What a victory for the environment.
And health. I’ll cite Skeptoid: between 50K and 100K Americans die every year to lung cancer linked to particulate pollution (more, of course to smoking). Even if the most widely-pessimistic estimates for the total human casualties from Chernobyl come to pass, you’d have to have a Chernobyl-sized disaster every two weeks to equal the particulate numbers, and that’s ONLY in the US.
OK, you say, but that’s just humans… what about the irradiated areas around Chernobyl and Fukushima that will take decades or hundreds of years to recover; lost to Mother Nature and Ukrainian farmers alike? Well, I’d just point you at the global warming numbers. If you believe only the most conservative, optimistic numbers for global warming and accept that human atmospheric pollution from coal and gas plants are responsible for the larger portion of the projected effects, then losing a couple thousand square miles of wilderness every ten years or so is probably a cheap price to pay. If you look at the more moderate or pessimistic numbers - the estimates of mass-extinctions; water shortages; mass-migrations; the potential for famine and war - you’ll start wondering why we aren’t building Chernobyl-quality reactors everywhere, like, yesterday.
Horrific math to have to do, sure, but you have to weigh alternatives.
At least we won’t have to bury nucular shit to appease the public only to have our descendants find out that the fucking ground is moving and unburying our radiating remains 100,000 years later.
Seriously. Coal plants. facepalm It’s like drinking nothing but rat poison because you heard water can be toxic.
So you would rather have coal fired plants killing people right now? Brilliant!
The Chinese government wouldn’t listen.