New U.S. nuclear reactors close to construction: S&P

[nadinbrzezinski]

(Reuters) - For the first time in more than 30 years, the construction of new nuclear plants is underway in the United States despite the ongoing nuclear crisis at Fukushima in Japan.

The accident at Fukushima Daiichi will cause the U.S. nuclear regulators to call for new inspections and additional regulatory scrutiny on both existing and new plants, but should not stop the construction of at least a few new reactors in the country, Standard & Poor's credit analysts said on a call Wednesday.

The construction of new reactors in the United States has stalled since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

Two new projects, from Southern Co's Georgia Power unit and SCANA Corp's South Carolina Electric & Gas Co unit, however, are on track to receive the combined construction permit and operating licenses (COL) from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), possibly before the end of 2011, S&P said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-utilities-nuclear-spcall-idUSTRE74344Z20110504?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

CRAZEE...

[kristopher]

1. here is a good overview of the status of the "renaissance"

Registration is required but its free and MIT Technology Review is a good publication.

Giant Holes in the Ground
Published by MIT

November/December 2010
Giant Holes in the Ground

An expected nuclear renaissance has failed to materialize as plans for new plants are scrapped or delayed. What happened?

By Matthew L. Wald

At the edge of the massive excavation project that is a preliminary step to building America's biggest nuclear power plant, Joshua Elkins stands next to two holes that span 42 acres in the red Georgia clay. Elkins maintains the earth-moving equipment that dug these holes, each as big as 15 football fields, 90 feet down to bedrock and then painstakingly refilled them to about 50 feet with soil tested to maintain stability in an earthquake. In helping to lay the foundation for the two 1,100-megawatt reactors the Southern Company is building here, his machines will contour the earth to specifications meticulously measured by GPS.

The last time anybody in the United States did excavation work for a new nuclear reactor, Elkins, who turned 27 in October, had not been born. Indeed, the groundbreaking for these Westinghouse-designed reactors at the Vogtle nuclear plant, 35 miles south of Augusta, Georgia, represents the first new nuclear construction since the 1970s. (Two existing reactors at the plant began commercial operation in 1987 and 1989.) An unlikely coalition of large utility companies, government policy makers, and environmentalists worried about global warming hoped that it and several other large planned plants in the United States would mark the beginning of a nuclear renaissance, with scores of new reactors being built around the country and worldwide.

And at first glance, circumstances finally seem to favor an expansion of nuclear power. Some $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees was made available to cover as much as 80 percent of the cost of building a new plant, and the loan program may soon offer tens of billions more. (The new Vogtle reactors received $8.3 billion in loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy in February.) President Obama, members of his administration, and the Republican leadership have all called for increased use of nuclear power as part of a long-term strategy for reducing U.S. reliance on fossil fuels. Also on the bandwagon for nuclear power are such influential technologists as Microsoft founder Bill Gates (see Q&A, September/October 2010) and longtime environmentalist Stewart Brand, who have argued that expanding nuclear capacity is essential to meeting growing worldwide electricity demand with zero-carbon energy sources.

But now the renaissance is stalled--both in the United States and in many other parts of the world. Apart from the Vogtle plant, the only U.S. nuclear project on which site work has started is across the Savannah River, near Jenkinsville, South Carolina, where the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and the South Carolina Public Service Authority are planning to add two reactors to the existing V. C. Summer plant. Although many other utilities have applied for approval of reactor sites or projects in the last few months, most of the plans, including some of the most high-profile examples, have met obstacles. The Chicago-based utility Exelon, which is the nation's largest nuclear operator, with 17 units, has postponed its decision on whether to build a twin-unit nuclear plant in Victoria County, Texas. Two other large nuclear suppliers, NRG Energy and UniStar Nuclear Energy, have put off building long-planned plants in south Texas and Calvert County, Maryland, respectively.

The problems are not confined ...

http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=26542

[FBaggins]

2. Does any of the "overview" translate to these reactors being stopped?

Because it sure looks like they're about to get rolling.

If the one in SC really does come in on time and on budget... that would really mess up several of your spam posts, now wouldn't it?

I can see why you're worried.

But like I said on the other thread. Arnie is recycling his "newly discovered" design issue from over a year ago in a last-ditch attempt to stop these four units.

What do you think his chances are?

[kristopher]

4. On time and on budget?

Let's see how honest you are; what was the price when the project was originally proposed?

As for "on time", that too is hogwash. The industry said the first plant of their proposed new round of construction would be online by 2010.

[FBaggins]

6. Why does it matter what the price was when proposed?

The question is what's the price at the time the construction is approved.

As for "on time", that too is hogwash. The industry said the first plant of their proposed new round of construction would be online by 2010.

Again... what does it matter what the original plans are? You can't start construction until the government finalizes all approvals. It's ridiculous to "score" as "construction time" the period when you first considered a plant.

Remember that offshore wind farm we spoke of a few weeks ago? When was it first proposed and when will the final turbine be installed? Is that what counts as the contruction time for a wind farm?

[kristopher]

7. On time and on budget?

Let's see how honest you are; what was the price when the project was originally proposed?

As for "on time", that too is hogwash. The industry said the first plant of their proposed new round of construction would be online by 2010.

Here is what the industry actually sees when they look at Vogtle:
Fission industry reveals plan to pilfer public purse.

If you've paid attention to the effort of the fission industry to reinvent itself as "the solution to global warming" you'll know that the cost is so high, and the risk of default so great, that there seems no chance that these plants can be built as a market based project. This article from Nuclear Energy Industry Insider sums up well and with pride the solutions the fission industry has found at Vogtle (S. Carolina project site) to use as a blueprint for the revival of industry.

Nuclear Energy Industry Insider
Industry Insight

Plant Vogtle: An industry blueprint in the making?
24 October 2010
Rebuilding nuclear energy units in the US is a mighy feat. In this edition we look at the progress of Southern Company's Plant Vogtle project in the US state of Georgia. Alison Ebbage finds out why a solid EPC contract and a Senate bill have had a lot to do with why this project could become a promising industry blueprint....
By Alison Ebbage
http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/industry-insight/plant-vogtle-industry-blueprint-making

What you will find in this article is a plan that transfers all financial risks away from the investor and onto the public. All of it that is except perhaps 1/4 to 3%. It doesn't matter what happens, those who get all the money if they build it will lose nothing if they fail to build it; or fail to build it for the price they promised; or fail to build it within the time promised.

It was my understanding from the MIT report that the goal of this policy endeavor was to prove the economic viability of merchant plants. The promise was that with "cost sharing" (that is the term for transferred risk) by the Federal govt for the first couple or three reactors, they would be able to attract the capital needed without further help.

Is that the lesson the Nuclear Energy Industry Insider writer is taking away from the "cost sharing" that is underway? Is that what it sounds like anybody?

Next, as an added reason to appreciate the political skill of the fission industry, we could discuss the way they have, by law, dramatically curtailed the rights of the judicial, legislative and most administrative authorities to act in the public's behalf. It reminds me a lot of the way the new governor of PA has structured his energy regulatory authority by making all legal and regulatory challenges go though his hand picked special regulator and then giving that special regulator the authority to over-rule anyone.

Vogtle...

I wonder if that is also a town on Vogsphere? There is certainly something Vogon-ish about their single-minded drive to build this plant.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x288525

****************************************

Note that the "credit subsidy cost" has been reduced to an estimated 0.5-1.5%. Here is the chance of default that is supposed to offset:
CBO estimate on nuclear loan guarantees

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the first nuclear plant built using a federal loan guarantee would have a capacity of 1,100 megawatts and have associated project costs of $2.5 billion. We expect that such a plant would be located at the site of an existing nuclear plant and would employ a reactor design certified by the NRC prior to construction. This plant would be the first to be licensed under the NRC’s new licensing procedures, which have been extensively revised over the past decade.

Based on current industry practices, CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project. Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

Note the price - $2.5 billion was to be only for the first plant. Future plants were, according to the assumptions provided by the nuclear industry, expected to have lower costs as economy of scale resulted in savings.

In fact, since the report was written the estimated cost has risen to an average of about $8 billion.

Wonder what that does to the “risk is that … the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources”?

Does that risk diminish or increase when the price rises from $2.5 billion to $8 billion?

[Marblehead]

3. what could go wrong...

:shrug:

[flamingdem]

5. At least there are only a couple that will go forward

if not for Fukushima the push would have been much harder for supposed green nuke energy, at the taxpayers expense of course.. and the potential expense of our DNA

[FBaggins]

8. Good luck with that.

There are a large number being built all aroung the world.

Fukushima will no doubt slow the process down, but it isn't going to stop it in a world where coal and gas are recognized as greater threats and renewables can't ramp up fast enough to fill the gap.

[flamingdem]

9. I'm referring to construction in the US

though many countries are reacting and cutting back on nuke plans such as China.

[FBaggins]

10. China is cutting back? Have you told Reuters?

Seems like they hadn't heard this as late as... yesterday?

"While Germany and Italy have turned their backs on nuclear power, China is pressing ahead with an ambitious plan to raise capacity from 10.8 gigawatts at the end of 2010 to as much as 70 or 80 GW in 2020. "


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/03/china-nuclear-idUSL3E7FR0HZ20110503

As much as 70 GW of new capacity in just a decade? I could have sworn that someone told me nuclear takes much longer than that.

[flamingdem]

11. There is plenty of news about suspensions of nuke building in China

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703566504576202512705277514.html

[FBaggins]

12. Sounds like you still haven't learned a simple lesson:

"Wishing doesn't make it so"

You posted an article from a month and a half ago about a temporary pause...maybe (with government officials "staunchly reaffirm(ing) their commitment to nuclear").

Other articles from that same period say things like:

"The suspension and safety checks will allow China's communist leaders to allay any concerns among the public about the safety of nuclear power without derailing" plans to double nuclear energy's share of national power generation to high single digits by 2020.

...and...

"A top Chinese official said earlier this week that Japan's problems would not deter China from expanding nuclear power generation."


I posted an article from yesterday that makes clear that their plans have not changed.

Yet something tells me that rather than recognize how far off-base you were... you actually think you supported your claim that China was "Cutting back on nuke plans".

Always the free entertainment with you, isn't it? :)

[flamingdem]

13. You haven't learned how to analyze double speak of a situation in flux

There will be an impact, as there is in other countries, you prefer to think you know it all now, like imagining that you know anything about the impact of Fukushima, you do not know but you pretend to be sure, to bolster your ideology, but you fool no one.

[FBaggins]

14. Update

China will stick to its goal of achieving an installed nuclear-power capacity of 70 gW by 2020. That is the motivation behind restarting approval of the halted nuclear projects, a source with the China Nuclear Energy Association said at the 7th annual China Nuclear Energy Congress 2011 in Beijing.

Feng Yi, deputy secretary-general of the China Nuclear Energy Association, told CBN that China's nuclear power development will not be influenced by the accident at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant. But as all countries begin to tighten the nuclear power development for safety concerns, he said China will also raise the threshold for nuclear projects.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2011-05/16/content_12519659.htm

Guess it was just more coincidence/blind luck, eh?

[bananas]

15. "Wishing doesn't make it so" - BWAHAHAHAA!!!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16721844@N00/429450898



Every two years the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) together with the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) publish detailed data about existing reactors, reactors under
construction, shut down reactors and also forecasts for the next 20–30 years. An early
forecasts in 1975 predicted the nuclear capacity of OECD member countries to grow to
between 772–890 GW by 1990. Based on such forecasts the uranium production capacities
were extended. But in reality, the installed capacity grew to 260 GW falling far below the
IAEA target range. The 1977 forecast was less ambitious, envisaging a range of between
860–999 GW by 2000. As the year 2000 came closer, the more modest the forecasts became
eventually predicting a capacity ranging between 318–395 GW by 2000. Actually, a total of
303 GW were installed in the year 2000. Every forecast by the IAEA in the past eventually
turned out as having been too optimistic.

[Nederland]

16. Ok, now let's compare those to predictions about solar and wind

In 1976 Lovins predicted that soft energy technologies like solar energy, wind energy, biofuels, and geothermal energy would provide 30% of our electricity by the year 2000. In reality, they provided less than 1% by the year 2000.

So Lovins predicted 30% and we got 1%, making him off by 30x.

In the graph above, it looks like a few nuke predictions were off by 2x or 3x, and many were only off by 20%-30%.

So it looks like the pro-nukes are much better at predicting the future than the "renewables will save us" crowd.

[kristopher]

21. If you have the facts on your side, why do you need fabrications?

You wrote, "In 1976 Lovins predicted that soft energy technologies like solar energy, wind energy, biofuels, and geothermal energy would provide 30% of our electricity by the year 2000."

You can't source that because Lovins never said it.

[FBaggins]

24. Do you assume that it's not true because you know that to be the case?

Or is it just that it doesn't fit the rest of your predispositions so you just assume it's wrong?





http://www.greentechhistory.com/2009/07/1976-forecast-renewables-will-supply-30-of-us-energy-by-2000/

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/26604/amory-b-lovins/energy-strategy-the-road-not-taken


But I love the title of your post (along with the extreme irony). I could have used that in reponse to you probably 100 times in the last couple years. Bound to come in handy.

[kristopher]

28. Your ability to be deliberately obtuse is a never ending source of amazement.

Here is a link for the full foreign Affairs article:

Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken
Journal or Magazine Article, 1976
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

This landmark article in Foreign Affairs describes Amory Lovins' concepts of the "hard path" and "soft path" of energy use. This piece established Lovins as an innovative voice in the ongoing energy debate.


In it Lovins argues that we have a choice - That's why it commences with the Frost quote:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

-Robert Frost

He didn't say "will" he said "would if". The choice was distributed generation vs centralized thermal.

[bananas]

31. It's amazing how the pro-nukes continue to lie about something which is so easily refutable

:rofl:

[FBaggins]

36. See #35.

If you don't want that to be the standard... you need to stop using it yourself.

Yes... I knew you would step in it if I left your mess where you dropped it.

[Nederland]

39. Yes, he outlines two possibilities

The hard path and the soft path. Both offer up predictions about what the world will look like depending on what course of action the government took. Arguing about whether or not we took the hard path or the soft path is academic though, because the bottom line is that Lovin's predictions were wrong for BOTH paths. He was just wrong, anyway you look at it.

[bananas]

43. No, your reasoning is faulty.

First, we didn't follow the soft path, so it's incorrect to claim his soft path projection was wrong.
Second, the hard path projections were not from him, they were from government and industry, so it's incorrect to say that he was wrong about that.

[Nederland]

49. And you are being hypocritical

In post #15 you crowed about how far off projections for nuclear power were. Why is it that nuke supporters can't simply say "yeah, we didn't follow that path..."?

Or is that excuse only available to people that agree with you?

[FBaggins]

50. I'll go with door #2 Alex. n/t

[kristopher]

51. Forecast vs "illustrative example"

The information on the graphs you seek to equate is clearly labeled in both cases:

Post 15 is a "forecast" and Lovins' graph is an "illustrative example". Unless you have a problem with comprehending standard English, those are not the same thing.

[Nederland]

53. Yeah, but we didn't follow that path

So you can't expect the forecast to be correct.

[kristopher]

54. yes, we did follow that path.

ETA: Face it, you falsely portrayed what Lovins wrote. Whether it was deliberate or because you were sourcing it from some winger website that was deliberately lying about it doesn't really matter, you falsely portrayed the information.

[Nederland]

55. No we didn't

We didn't build as many reactors as NEA and the IAEA thought we would, and as a result their predicted the nuclear capacity number was too high. If we had followed the path they laid out and chosen to build all those reactors, their numbers would have been correct.

[kristopher]

58. No more bumps ...

...for stupid points made only to get attention.

[FBaggins]

60. 75% of your posts that lead with just "."

Are bumps for stupid points made only to get attention.

Heck... posting that you aren't going to post any longer is a stupid point made only to get attention.

Now I'm stuck trying to figure out whether posting to TELL you that you're doing that is also... oh never mind. :)

[FBaggins]

61. Could you coordinate a little better with bananas?

He's saying that we didn't.

[bananas]

32. LOL - you don't know the difference between a "proposal" and a "prediction"!

:rofl: :rofl:

[FBaggins]

35. Are you serious? It's your own standard but you can't live with it?

What do you think all those graphs you posted were?

They were plans for actual installations.

Kristopher constantly looks back a decade to proposals that we increase nuclear production and scores them against the present reality... claiming that they were wrong. But Lovins gets a pass from the same standard?

[bananas]

37. In other words, you don't know the difference, and you don't know the history.

That's a lot of ground to cover.

[FBaggins]

38. I know both.

I also know that you guys are using a double standard.

I was just pointing that out.

If you're uncomfortable with your own tactics being used against you... you should stop using them. :)

[bananas]

45. No, it's evident you don't. nt

[FBaggins]

46. What is "evident" is that hypocrisy is necessary for your position to succeed.

Otherwise you could do without it.

About a year ago, you said that there would be no reactors built in Europe before 2020. You later spun that to include only parts of Europe, but the UK was clearly the focus of the conversation.

Which side of this fence was that statement on? Is it a prediction that's wrong... or just a possibility that didn't come to fruition because others made other decisions?

[kristopher]

48. How old are you?

Your mischaracterization of Lovins is self-evident, so nothing is gained by rubbing your nose in it. What is worth writing about, however, is the actual content of the article dealing with a choice before us now - the same choice we faced then.

Do you remember being an energy consumer in the 70s? The gas lines and unemployment that resulted from the formation of OPEC and energy embargoes to the US? That was the focus of everyone's life then and it engendered a deep-rooted fear in some. That fear didn't just fade away; it continues to underpin the drive for energy security behind both the willingness to reject climate science and the little support that nuclear power enjoys today. Lovins

It was in that context Lovins warned of the consequences of following the energy path that has brought us to where we are today and outlined what he saw as a superior alternative.

As you know we chose the hard path, the route of large-scale, centralized thermal generation. His first "warning" of the consequence of locking ourselves into a "long-term coal economy many times the scale of today's" was that it would result in a doubling of CO2 early this century leading to "irreversible changes in global climate".

It could be said that Lovins was slightly off target when he speculates that the conditions making a transition to a soft path might be destroyed by delaying the transition and not be repeated, for we are now at a crossroad similar to what he saw in 1976. In fact, I'm sure even he would agree that the positive economic drivers (better technologies and rapidly declining renewable costs) propelling us towards the soft path are stronger and more certain to result in change than when he wrote his landmark paper. However, if we count the costs of the delay in terms of climate disruption and degraded environmental conditions, perhaps the qualifier about today's change being one made "disruptively by necessity" can make up for that.

Final three paragraphs of article:

...We stand at a crossroads: without decisive action our options will slip away. Delay in energy conservation lets wasteful use run on so far that the logistical problems of catching up become insuperable. Delay in widely deploying diverse soft technologies pushes them so far into the future that there is no longer a credible fossil-fuel bridge to them: they must be well under way before the worst part of the oil-and-gas decline. Delay in building the fossil-fuel bridge makes it too tenuous: what the sophisticated coal technologies can give us, in particular, will no longer mesh with our pattern of transitional needs as oil and gas dwindle

Yet these kinds of delay are exactly what we can expect if we continue to devote so much money, time, skill, fuel and political will to the hard technologies that are so demanding of them. Enterprises like nuclear power are not only unnecessary but a positive encumbrance for they prevent us, through logistical competition and cultural incompatibility, from pursuing the tasks of a soft path at a high enough priority to make them work together properly. A hard path can make the attainment of a soft path prohibitively difficult, both by starving its components into garbled and incoherent fragments and by changing social structures and values in a way that makes the innovations of a soft path more painful to envisage and to achieve. As a nation, therefore, we must choose one path before they diverge much further. Indeed, one of the infinite variations on a soft path seems inevitable, either smoothly by choice now or disruptively by necessity later; and I fear that if we do not soon make the choice, growing tensions between rich and poor countries may destroy the conditions that now make smooth attainment of a soft path possible.

These conditions will not be repeated. Some people think we can use oil and gas to bridge to a coal and fission economy, then use that later, if we wish, to bridge to similarly costly technologies in the hazy future. But what if the bridge we are now on is the last one? Our past major transitions in energy supply were smooth because we subsidized them with cheap fossil fuels. Now our new energy supplies are ten or a hundred times more capital-intensive and will stay that way. If our future capital is generated by economic activity fueled by synthetic gas at $25 a barrel-equivalent, nuclear electricity at $60–120 a barrel equivalent, and the like, and if the energy sector itself requires much of that capital just to maintain itself, will capital still be as cheap and plentiful as it is now, or will we have fallen into a "capital trap"? Wherever we make our present transition to, once we arrive we may be stuck there for a long time. Thus if neither the soft nor the hard path were preferable on cost or other grounds, we would still be wise to use our remaining cheap fossil fuels—sparingly—to finance a transition as nearly as possible straight to our ultimate energy-income sources. We shall not have another chance to get there.

If one is concerned about any aspect of the state of our energy system, then they should give this article a long, leisurely read. It can be downloaded in full at this link:
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

[bananas]

33. Compare those charts to what actually happened: 100 quads in 2000 - just like Amory "predicted"

government and industry projections would have us aroun 200 quads by now - they were wrong, Amory was right!
:rofl:


:rofl:

[FBaggins]

56. IS that what he predicted?

So it's a prediction now if he gets it right? :rofl:

But but... kris just said that we TOOK the "hard path". That's not 100 quads in 2000.

[Nederland]

27. Why bother sourcing it?

Even when I provide a link to something that you say doesn't exist you don't admit you are wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=262189#263479

[bananas]

29. Nope, Lovins didn't make a "prediction", he compared two scenarios

which he called the hard energy path and the soft energy path.
He didn't "predict" which path we would choose.
Carter started us down the soft energy path,
Reagan sent us back down the hard energy path.

[Nederland]

40. And the hard path?

Were his predictions accurate? No. He was wrong anyway you look at it.

[bananas]

41. Those weren't his predictions, they were projections from government and industry

Try reading the words on the chart.

[Nederland]

42. Projections versus Predictions?

Now you are just playing semantic games. The two words are synonyms.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prediction

[bananas]

44. The two terms have different connotations, and you know that. nt

[FBaggins]

47. Yep.

If it's a nuclear supporter speculating about or advocating the need for a nuclear renaisance... it's a prediction. If it's an anti-nuke advocating a different path... it's just a speculative projection.

And, of course, if it's something from the past that has already failed to pan out, the difference depends entirely on whether you're happy with how things occured or not.

[kristopher]

52. Lovins graph labeled "illustrative example"; EIA graph labeled "forecasts"

Ned's loves going down the "strawman" path.

[FBaggins]

19. We're talking about China here.

Their estimates have only gone up.

They have at least two dozen plants currently under construction... not just theoretically planned with permits pending.

[kristopher]

22. At least two dozen?

In you other post you quoted an article that said 16.

Which is it?

[FBaggins]

23. I suspect it's differences in what's scored as "under construction"

Is it site work or after a foundation is laid?

It was reported as ~35 approved and 26 under contruction when the temporary hold on new approvals was reported about a month ago.

[madokie]

25. I personally don't think either will come to fruitation.

[FBaggins]

26. Where do they get stopped if not by Fukushima?

There aren't many potential roadblocks left before construction begins and the feds seem itent on approving them.

As several have pointed out, there isn't nearly as much risk for the developers as later reactors would likely have...

...so who decides to stop them?

[Fledermaus]

30. By the time Fukushima is over, I don't think anybody will want nuclear.

It's starting to look like a disaster of epic proportions.

[marions ghost]

34. Nobody wants nuclear

especially after Fukushima--but that doesn't stop them from ramming it down our throats.

[txlibdem]

17. The result of Fukushima: we will build no more 1960s design reactors. So what?

No person in their right mind has ever said that we ought to be building more of those Gen I and Gen II plants.

The Chinese are building Gen III+ reactors and have been actively developing Thorium cycle nuclear reactors (Gen IV).

The US has 10 nuclear reactors in the pipeline for approval. All of them are Gen III or Gen III+. The Gen III+ are only a stepping stone on the way toward Gen IV plants which are passively safe and most of the designs being worked on can be built in a factory, mass produced to be far more cost effective than any older designs ever could.

The anti-nukers trying to use a failure of Fukushima 1960s design reactors that were built between 1971 and 1974 is an exercise in fantasy. Any person with access to google can easily refute all your claims. Anti-nuker fail!

[FBaggins]

18. The Chinese are also building Gen II+ reactors.

They have a variant of the French CP models with at least a dozen under construction.

The US has 10 nuclear reactors in the pipeline for approval. All of them are Gen III or Gen III+.

True... depending on how you define the "pipeline". Probably only 6-8 will be built over the next decade or so.

[txlibdem]

20. Gen II+... hopefully that will change with their current "review" of future plans

It makes zero sense to me to build any old design reactors. Perhaps they are modifying the old designs to bring them closer to modern safety standards? I don't know but I sure as heck hope so.

[SpoonFed]

57. Remind me again,

which reactor design was it that fixes the human character flaws of greed, corruption and corner trimming?

[txlibdem]

59. human character flaws of greed, corruption and corner cutting...

Let's take a look at recent events in China.

=========================================
Dog food executives allowed a poison chemical into their product. Hundreds of dogs (some here in the US) were killed. They were shot by firing squad.

Milk products companies decided to put a harmful chemical into their product. They were lined up and shot by firing squad.

Their State Food and Drug Administration director took bribes to approve fake drugs. 10 people died because of it. He was executed.

A stock trader was executed for a fraud involving 9.6 million Dollars US.

A CEO was executed for stealing 14 million Dollars US.
=======================================

So, to answer your question: no design or system is perfect. That is why the government needs to be independent of the corporations with both "a carrot and a stick."

See above for the stick.

[SpoonFed]

65. So you're just proving my point...! n/t

[txlibdem]

72. Honestly. Your point is both unprovable and irrefutable: too many variables

If effect, it is an attempt to prove "the existence of GOD" for the purpose discussing complex human endeavors.

Everybody doubted JFK's proclamation that we will land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth before the end of the decade. Well, we did it, but not without some losses of equipment and an entire crew of Astronauts who burned to death sitting on the launch pad.

Should we never have tried to go to the moon? We wouldn't have our computer chip, cellphone, computer, etc., industries if we hadn't. But those 3 astronauts may have lived to a ripe old age.

2) Everything we do carries a degree of risk. You are far more likely to die of a bee sting than a nuclear disaster. But I've never noticed you posting hundreds of anti-bee claptrap.

http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html

[jpak]

62. I have relatives that live near that SC plant

When I visited there recently, I was amazed to see lots of photovoltaic panels on the utility poles.

But alas, they not there to supply electricity to the local grid

they powered the emergency/evacuation sirens

the irony

yup

[FBaggins]

63. Now that is ironic.

Of course... it makes sense. If there's a problem at the nuclear plant, there's a good chance that it isn't supplying electricity.

Still... ironic.

[txlibdem]

64. Your relatives near that nuclear power plant

Do they seem healthy? Or do they have 3 arms and tumors the size of soccer balls growing out of their necks?

If pro-nuclear power folks such as FBaggins, Nadir, PamW, and I are correct then the answers will be "yes" and "no" respectively.

If all you anti-nuker posters are correct, the opposite will be true.

Please answer honestly. We won't discriminate against your 3-armed relatives. We love all of the nuke-citizens.

[Nihil]

66. Now, now ...

> Do they seem healthy? Or do they have 3 arms and tumors the size of
> soccer balls growing out of their necks?
>
> If pro-nuclear power folks such as FBaggins, Nadir, PamW, and I are
> correct then the answers will be "yes" and "no" respectively.
> If all you anti-nuker posters are correct, the opposite will be true.

You should have learned by now that you (et al) were just making
predictions whilst they were making projections ... or vice-versa
if that makes your pre-selected cast-in-concrete opinion look any
more favourable in retrospect ...

:P

[kristopher]

67. Seriously? And here I thought you had respect for science...

Science can't escape the use of language as a fundamental part of the process, and therefore the accurate use of language is considered a fundamental skill to proper production and application of knowledge gained through the scientific process.

And yet, you are willing to distort the evidence in the original source presented in favor of sophistry and snark...

A "forecast" by a government agency charged with providing best estimates on future events isn't the same thing as an "illustrative example" of how one set of policies will produce vastly different results than a different set of policies.

[Nihil]

68. Seriously: I have great respect for science ...

... but after having waded through this thread - filled as it is with
"sophistry and snark" (to use your words) - I found it hard to take
any of the self-important posters at all seriously during the minute or so
that it took me to post my earlier reply.


> Science can't escape the use of language as a fundamental part of the process,
> and therefore the accurate use of language is considered a fundamental skill
> to proper production and application of knowledge gained through the scientific
> process.

I trust people will remember this whenever I give in to my instincts and
correct their inaccuracies in spelling & grammar in the future. Normally I would
just override such feelings and try to read the intent within the badly-presented
words - as I did upthread when wading through the pointless bickering - but if you
really insist ...?

:hi:

[kristopher]

69. So you equate spelling and grammar mistakes with deliberate misrepresentation?

And fission industry insiders wonder why people mistrust them...

[Nihil]

70. I equate spelling and grammar mistakes with a failure in "the accurate use of language".

You were the one claiming "deliberate misrepresentation" yet you are
also the one who deliberately misrepresents my view.

In addition, you were the one who claimed that science relied on the
accurate use of language yet you view the inaccurate use of language
to be forgivable under certain indeterminate circumstances. It may be
pure coincidence that the "forgivable" circumstances are only to be
found when the mistakes still support your case but I doubt it.


> And fission industry insiders wonder why people mistrust them...

As you've now descended to the usual untruthful slurs, I see little
point in continuing the discussion.

Have a nice evening. :hi:

[kristopher]

71. I missed the part where you addressed the substance...

From above:
Seriously? And here I thought you had respect for science...
Science can't escape the use of language as a fundamental part of the process, and therefore the accurate use of language is considered a fundamental skill to proper production and application of knowledge gained through the scientific process. <=== Your focus

Point ===> And yet, you are willing to distort the evidence in the original source presented in favor of sophistry and snark...

Evidence ===> A "forecast" by a government agency charged with providing best estimates on future events isn't the same thing as an "illustrative example" of how one set of policies will produce vastly different results than a different set of policies.

[Nihil]

73. Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster?

> I missed the part where you addressed the substance...
> Point ===> And yet, you are willing to distort the evidence in the original
> source presented in favor of sophistry and snark...

That will be because I wasn't part of the earlier bickering over
the "evidence", hence didn't "distort" anything and so had nothing
to "address".

I responded (in like vein) to txlibdem on his/her humourous comment
then you jumped in to accuse me of not having "respect for science".

With regard to missing the point, you thus seem to have missed mine:
>> You were the one claiming "deliberate misrepresentation" yet you are
>> also the one who deliberately misrepresents my view.


(But thank you for not repeating the earlier slur.)