US licenses first nuclear reactors since 1978

[Eugene]

Source: MSNBC.com

US licenses first nuclear reactors since 1978

By Miguel Llanos, msnbc.com

Updated at 1:25 p.m. ET: It's been 34 years -- and several nuclear accidents later -- but a divided federal panel on Thursday licensed a utility to build nuclear reactors in the U.S. for the first time since 1978.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's chairman, Gregory Jaczko, opposed licensing the two reactors at this time even though he had earlier praised their design.

"There is still more work" to be done to ensure that lessons learned from Japan's Fukushima disaster last year are engrained in the reactor design, he told his colleagues. "I cannot support this licensing as if Fukushima never happened. I believe it requires some type of binding commitment that the Fukushima enhancements that are currently projected and currently planned to be made would be made before the operation of the facility."

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

The licensing covers two reactors estimated to cost $14 billion that the Southern Company wants to add to its existing Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia. Preliminary work has already begun and plans are for the first new reactor to be operating in 2016.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10362722-us-licenses-first-nuclear-reactors-since-1978

[certainot]

1. one of the functions of global warming denial is to make things bad enough to 'require' centralized

big money, tax payer subsidized 'solutions' like nuclear.

[closeupready]

2. Stupid is as stupid does.

nt

[David__77]

3. We need 500 more like it.

As soon as possible.

[Codeine]

7. Holy shit. I just agreed with David__77!

[jpak]

9. Can we build a spent fuel disposal site in your backyard - and make the nuclear industry pay for it?

[snooper2]

19. No, but we can have NASA design booster rockets and cargo holds

to send it into the sun


Folks around here don't think outside the box too much

[Odin2005]

14. OMG, I agree with David77!!!

*FAINTS*

[Terry in Austin]

22. Pff! $3T for a drop in the bucket.

"Soon" and "nuclear reactor construction" don't really go in the same paragraph.

We're energy junkies looking for the next fix. Even nukes.

[boppers]

4. Passive failure handling.

It's really not that complex: No power, heavy shaking, underwater, hit by a plane, whatever, the system loop shuts down.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Not Good Enough

It still needs active cooling long after it "shuts down".

[boppers]

6. That's what pellet dump systems (etc.) are for.

No active positive power, no chain left to self-sustain the chain, cooling needs vanish.

You are correct, of course, that cooling needs to be available during the shutdown, and that has to be a time interval that is fairly short.

[trof]

8. At least they'll be downwind from me.

[hunter]

10. Better than fossil fuels or the antique nuclear plants we're using now.

We ought to have banned coal fired power plants forty years ago.

[truth2power]

11. To boil water to produce steam to turn a turbine. Oy. Vey.!!!...

We are doomed!

[DCofVA]

12. Just what the world needs, more radioactive waste

[rayofreason]

13. Just what the world needs, less CO2 emission per kWhr produced. n/t

[Odin2005]

15. About damn time.

A victory of reason over fearful technophobic ignorance

[BadtotheboneBob]

17. Hear! Hear!

I agree completely...

[tabasco]

16. Good news.

It's our only hope to get off coal.

[lovuian]

18. when Fukishima blows and radiates America

Nuclear will be toast here

[NickB79]

20. Fukishima is going to "blow"? How and when, exactly?

Or are you just making shit up?

[Skwid]

24. I'm offering eleven to 2 on your second option there.

[NickB79]

21. It can't be much worse than the nat. gas fracking we're currently betting the farm on

Which we now know is just as carbon-intense as burning coal, despite all the hype about how clean NG is: http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/13/natural-gas-climate-benefits-not-all-theyre-fracked-up-to-be-study-finds/

Oops.

[Skwid]

23. Long overdue. New technology averts the problems of those old devices.

But I suppose some people would rather freeze in the dark than embrace progress.
(Before you call me a troll, please understand I'm writing this thinking of Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer and even yet a victim of uneducated neo-Luddites.)

[fujiyama]

25. I'm definitely a big proponent of renewable energy usage

but it's important to first understand that to keep up with energy demand and fight climate change and dirtier forms of power production (coal being the worst), nuclear power has to be expanded - at least as a transition over the next fifty years or so. This would give the nation enough time to upgrade the grid and improve the efficiency of other renewables.

Besides, the designs for these reactors are much different from those at Fukushima.