First New Nuclear Plant in US in 30 years 838
Hugh Pickens writes "With backing from the White House and congressional leaders, and subsidies like the $500 million in risk insurance from the Department of Energy, the nuclear industry is experiencing a revival in the US. Scientific American reports that this week NRG Energy filed an application for the first new nuclear power plant in the US in thirty years to build two advanced boiling water reactors (ABWR) at its South Texas nuclear power plant site doubling the 2700 megawatts presently generated at the facility. The ABWR, based on technology already operating in Japan, works by using the heat generated by the controlled splitting of uranium atoms in fuel rods to directly boil water into steam to drive turbines producing electricity. Improvements over previous designs include removing water circulation pipes that could rupture and accidentally drain water from the reactor, exposing the fuel rods to a potential meltdown, and fewer pumps to move the water through the system. NRG projects it will spend $6 billion constructing the two new reactors and hopes to have the first unit online by 2014."
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
And the full cost of Nuclear Waste disposal is still not known, nor is it included in the quoted "price" of the electricity..
The Solution seems to be... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are many reactors which have problems operating right now because of local/regional water supply issues. Either water levels are too low or temperatures are too high... And it will only get worse in many states.
Worse as in 'even if the climate stops screwing around, most states have done a shitty job managing growth in relation to their water resources'.
Does Nuclear Energy Really Make Economic Sense? (Score:2, Interesting)
How are we going to store the nuclear waste in such a way that no one is hurt by it? Who will guard this facility for a million years? How much will that cost?
I think that before any new nuclear facility is licensed, its operators should be required to pay in advance for the disposal of its spent fuel. I don't think it's right that the cost should be borne by the taxpayer.
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Ironically, the FUD comes from greens, that should be supporting the things. But then again they've protested hydroelectric (kills fish), wind (kills birds), geothermal (OMG, it is cooling our crusts), so
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:1, Interesting)
--
5 billion less people on Earth would solve nearly every socio-economic and environmental problem we currently face.
Where to begin...
Re:Does Nuclear Energy Really Make Economic Sense? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure you can come up with some other demands that make it impossible to build nuclear power if you try a bit..
Re:Does Nuclear Energy Really Make Economic Sense? (Score:5, Interesting)
In terms of carbon footprint, it's miniscule in comparison.
Sure there's toxic side by-products, but who's not to say that plutonium can't be used in something else?
Oh wait it can,
radioisotope thermoelectric generators (think long lived spaceprobes)
annnndd.....
fast breader reactors, which produce more Plutonium than they consume, which can then be used as fissile material for OTHER nuclear reactors...
Processing it is admittedly difficult, but a well known problem and established procedures.
So storing it is only one option. Take your scaremongering about nuclear energy back to the 80s where it belongs. It's by far the greenest option IMHO.
Enhanced biofuels (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Congratulations! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Facilities that store nuclear waste can store waste economically and securely. If we figure out how to destroy it (like using it in breeder reactors perhaps, when Uranium-235 runs out) then great, if we don't it's no big deal to keep it stored (and it's not like the world would explode even if it did leak).
Nuclear is really the only option, and it's great that your government is going with what's right rather than what the misinformed majority think about nuclear power.
Unfortunately here in Australia the government that's probably going to get into power is anti-nuclear, just because of public opinion.
Just to emphasize this: Australia is a geographically and politically stable country, with a large surplus, which is a major climate change contributor, and has thousands of square kilometers of dry, arid, unused, practically inaccessible land, with vast uranium reserves and little threat from terrorism. But the ALP, if voted in, will invest in "clean coal" that it says won't even be ready to supply more than a fraction of our energy for another 15 years, by which time they won't be in power any longer.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
Iran? I thought you were referring to GWB there for a moment.
The Republic of Iran is a democratically elected theocratic republic [cia.gov].
-metric
Re:What, no comments? (Score:3, Interesting)
But even if we use U-235 and reprocess spent fuel - we'll have enough fuel for a looong time. Currently, only about 15% of U-235 is burned until it is poisoned by fissile products.
Re:What, no comments? (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, reprocessing spent fuel (which is not currently done in the US) increases the energy output of a given amount of uranium 60 times [wikipedia.org]. In addition, reprocessing removes (burns) various troublesome byproducts which would otherwise require long-tem storage.
What a bad investment (Score:1, Interesting)
It's a scam, as much as the geek at slashdot might light the idea. Had we invested in nuclear power 30 years ago, we could have made a reasonable return by now, however it's unlikely an inestment in nuclear now will wind up being cost effective as compard to just waiting for solar to improve.
It makes WAY more sense to crack down on coal plants, which already exist and are contributing more CO2 than this one nuclear plant will offset. Coal is cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, safer, more publically accepted and it doesn't take a decade to get one and running.
If the US was going to make the smart move to nuclear, we would HAVE to do so after the model of France who generates 90% of their power domestically. However, what you should note, is that their cost of electricity is not cheaper than surrounding countries. Meaning the main advantage is not cost, nor is it likely envrionment, but rather simply being independant of fossile fuel price instabilities, which of course will only get worse as reserves drop off and environmental concerns increase prices.
Carbon storing is simply not being used effectively on most coal plants and that's really all we need for now.
We are poised to start replaced coal plants with solar plants in 20 years, so how could this nuclear plant be a good investment. We'll get maybe 10 years of operation before solar power would have been a better, cleaner, more publically friendly alernative.
I'm not against nuclear, it's just there is now serious competition from truly gree and renewable sources and it doesn't make sense to jump on the nuclear bandwagon again while everyone else is investing in solar.
I bet the long term storage costs of the spent fuel rods alone destroys any bit of savings we could hope to achieve from nuclear. The US needs a waste recycling program like France has. Our reactors generate many times more waste than Frances resulting in much more difficult storage.
Our storage facility is already leaking radidation as the scientists contracting the building of the place communited fraud to speed things up. That sure is the American mindset. Always doing things the easy way not matter how much harder or more expensive they may be.
If we were in a position where nuclear was really the only option, I'd say go for it, but I can't see how the investment makes sense at a time when we a projecting a major move to solar.
We've already past the point of smart investment. Anyone can save money by installing solar heat or electricity in their homes. That means solar plants must already be perfectly feasible if you can manage a savings at home.
Just like America, spending money first, planning their invvestments second.
Texas !! of all places to not invest in solar over nuclear. Well I hope the state has to pay it's own nuclear storage costs, but I bet it will become some federal duty. I guess in that sense it's a smart investment for Texas but I think their choices in reactors are a bit lame.
I like pebble bed reactors or reactors that recycle waste such as France's system. France has, by far, the most experience running nuclear power so... why reinvent the wheel.
Re:Not ready for the responsibility (Score:5, Interesting)
And then you cite hackable control systems for oil power plants are a reason to avoid nuclear power plants (which are generally far more security-conscious)?
There are issues with nuclear power plants, specifically what to do with the waste long-term.* However, nuclear power plants themselves are actually quite safe, in large part because everyone involved respects the harm that can come if something does go wrong.
[*] - France has largely solved that problem by recycling, something the US refuses to do because it creates weapons-grade plutonium.
I disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
And I would go overseas if I thought I could pull it off before accumulating experience in my home country. I'd go to France in a heartbeat, et je parle français, if any French recruiters see this.
Re:Does Nuclear Energy Really Make Economic Sense? (Score:2, Interesting)
Permit to pollute (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I disagree (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What, no comments? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, but the crust is only 30-50 km thick. And mining in the mantle does not seem feasible to me.
Location, Location, Location (Score:5, Interesting)
Another location issue pertains specifically to Texas. Texas wind power has been growing very rapidly and may easily meet anticipated demand. Wind costs about $1.30/Watt to build while the nuclear plant, at this early phase, is anticipated to cost $2.20/Watt without modifications that come up in the licensing process or construction delays that genrally plague large projects.
South Texas may not be the best place to test the waters on new nuclear generation.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
Quote from Leo Szilard [wikipedia.org] (Wikipedia) who played a major role in the Manhattan Project:
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"
Re:What, no comments? (Score:2, Interesting)
drinking water - good enough to drink, usable to wash your hands, take a shower, etc.
usable, non-drinking water (recycled) - good to water plants, boil in a reactor, pressure wash the sidewalks, etc.
unusable sea water - good for your boat to float on, fish to swim in, use for a dam, extract uranium from, etc.
Also, I would like to share with you the following pictures:
http://www.progress-energy.com/aboutenergy/powerplants/corpcapabilities.pdf [progress-energy.com] (2005)
http://www.progress-energy.com/aboutenergy/powerplants/2007generatingplants.pdf [progress-energy.com] (July 2007)
(4 out of 33 reactors are hydroelectric)
Progress Energy is the dominant power supplier in the state, and have expanded operations into the Carolinas. I would like to to take note of the breakdown:
Capability Mix reactors
gas/oil - 48%
coal - 32%
nuclear - 19%
hydro - 1%
Generation Mix reactors
gas/oil - 18%
coal - 46%
nuclear - 35%
hydro - 1%
I am aware that this is a dated figure (2005). However, I believe that hydroelectric power is still a non-dominant supply. It is certainly not true that hydroelectric power is where we get "most of our energy".
Re:Boom (Score:5, Interesting)
To achieve this goal, instead of being water-moderated (like in all civilian US reactors), it was graphite-moderated.
This meant that if the water boiled off, it would actually increase output power (among other things). U.S. civilian PWRs lose the ability to continue the reaction if the coolant disappears because it is also the moderator.
In the case of Chernobyl, the graphite moderator had other problems - When the initial steam explosion occurred, the lid on the reactor pressure vessel was blown off, and exposed the graphite to air. Superheated radioactive flammable material + oxygen = BAD.
Chernobyl could not have happened in any U.S. reactor, both due to differences in safety policies and in fundamental reactor design. The worst accident in U.S. history (TMI) released less radioactive material into the environment than some coal-fired power plants release in just one day of operation due to trace amounts of uranium in the coal they burn. (There's one coal plant in Utah that is especially bad I believe.)
Given the choice of living 5 miles from a nuclear PWR, and 5 miles from a coal plant - I'll take the PWR!
Re:Sounds sensible (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Location, Location, Location (Score:4, Interesting)
There are a fair number of nuclear powerplants operating underwater. Reasonably stationary ones would be even easier
Re:What, no comments? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:unfortunate (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:2, Interesting)
An idea floated was to blow a boat/sub in San Fran harbour, but the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki beat them to it.
Check out the documentary:
http://tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/7830 [tv-links.co.uk]
Re:Location, Location, Location (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't forget to figure in that Wind generally has a production factor [usyd.edu.au] of around 30%, while nuclear has one of over 90% - and that's mostly demand based(IE they can produce power when they want to, and can normally schedule outages for maintenance). A plant with a capacity factor of 100%(IE 100% production for a full year) would produce 8.76 kWh per watt. A nuclear plant would average 7.884 kWh, while a wind turbine would only average 2.628 kWh.
That kicks wind up to $4.33 per sustained watt(IE max/factor), and nuclear to $2.44. That'd leave $1.89 to cover any increased operating costs of the nuclear plant. Heck, at 5% interest, that'd be 9.5 cents per watt in interest alone. That's a penny per kw/h that can go towards operating expenses on the plant - forever.
Also, don't assume that wind turbines are without operating costs - they might not need fuel, but they do need monitoring and maintenance.
Re:Location, Location, Location (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Boom (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Location, Location, Location (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Boom (Score:5, Interesting)
Hydroelectric was once seen as the "green" solution, but it isn't really anymore. It does have it's uses, mind you -- a good example being how quickly new power can be added and taken away from the grid. It pairs nicely with solar and wind as a consequence.
Re:Does Nuclear Energy Really Make Economic Sense? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd also ask any nuclear power operator to buy insurance to cover any damage caused by the plant due to negligent operation or accident. The industry keeps saying it's really, really safe, but can they find someone to sell them such an insurance policy, or afford to pay for it? That's a measure of how safe it really is.
Factor in these two costs and I doubt nuclear power would make any economic sense, compared to alternative technologies.
Re:Here's why: (Score:3, Interesting)
Powerful nations don't fall because they get overconfident. They fall because their citizens no longer have the desire to keep going. If America DOES collapse, it won't be because of an external threat. It will be because of the bickering, infighting, and sheer indifference and laziness of it's own people.
Re:Good (Score:3, Interesting)
Two reasons. One: High oil prices are actually a very new development, and may or may not be the new stable price point. Energy companies have been worried about the high oil prices crashing back down. Nobody wants to dump literally billions of dollars in an infrastructure development that is only profitable at $35 or above. Look at the price history over the last 20 years: http://www.oilcrash.com/images/simmons1/simmons1.gif [oilcrash.com]. (Ignore the fearmongering site, it was the first hit I got on google for a 20 year price history of oil). You see why they're leery to hop into it. While Peak Oil may be popular on Slashdot, Energy Execs look at a price history like that and want to wait a while longer to see if the prices stabilize at their current high prices.
Two: The Oil Weapon. Their worst nightmare is dumping billions into coal liquefaction and then having oil prices unintentionally or intentionally fall below $35 and make them lose it all. Intentional manipulation and price dumping in this fashion (called the Oil Weapon) has been one of the major reasons why investors have been scared out of the market, and prices remain high. Eventually though, especially if Peak Oil is true, alternative oil sources will come online, and help drop oil prices.
Plus, what makes you think people aren't pushing for it? You have the senior senator in America heavily lobbying for FT coal conversion, as well as the governor of Montana. It takes a long time for huge shifts in energy infrastructure to take place. They were monkeying around in the Oil Sands of Alberta for years, and now Albertan oil sand production is the main reason the Loony is trading at par with the US Dollar. The senators arguing which voted against Byrd basically had by and large wrong data, which was kind of aggravating. Watching Feinstein say that FT was an unproven novel technology was just... yeah. You can call a 70 year old technology that ran two countries entirely by itself a lot of things, but unproven is not one of them.
Back to the issue of greenhouse gasses, let's be honest -- we have a built infrastructure of billions of dollars of cars out there. Americans will not give up their cars, they'll very rarely carpool or bike to work, and they won't switch to electric or hydrogen cars unless a gun is put to their heads. Hybrids caught on because they use the existing infrastructure. It's possible to build effectively zero emission vehicle cars, but you're looking at a 20 or 30 year process until all cars are zero emission. It's not something you can wave your hand and solve overnight. Emissions from power plants are a lot more controllable. Build a new coal plant or build a nuclear plant? That's something the government can actually make happen. Coal and nuclear have roughly the same cost per kilowatt, but zero emission coal plants have double or treble the cost, and retrofitting plants is not a cheap endeavor either. If we switch to nuclear power, we take advantage of the only cheap clean power source besides Hydro, and the environmental movement is largely and ironically blocking new dam construction. Wind and solar are somewhere between 2x and 6x the cost per kilowatt of nuclear, and are usually not actually zero emission, as they usually have coal power plant backstops that come online when its not windy or sunny. Plus, if we turn off our coal power plants, it will cause coal prices to come down, which will further drop gas prices.