Surry Nuclear Reactors To Extend Lifespan To 80 Years (richmond.com) 148
QuantumPion writes: Dominion Virginia Power today will formally seek a second license extension for its Surry nuclear power plant, becoming the first utility in the U.S. to try to push the operating range for nuclear reactors to 80 years. If successful, the utility's pair of reactors in Surry County would be eligible to operate past 2050. The Surry plant, along with its North Anna sister site in Louisa County, were initially granted 40-year permits and operate today on 20-year renewals. Those two plants provide about 40 percent of Virginia's electricity.
Thanks anti-nuke extremists! (Score:4, Interesting)
Thank you so much anti-nuke extremists. Thanks to your inability to look at the bigger picture, we get to enjoy nuclear reactors using designs from the 1950's well into the 21st century instead of actually using safer, modern designs.
It's like if the safety problems with the Corvair had been used to shutdown all production of newer car models.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you looked at the figures of deaths per terawatt of nuclear compared to the next item on the list (wind), it will be obvious where nuclear power's place is. Just those figures alone should make people reconsider nuclear power as a core energy source.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why compare them? Wind and solar cannot replace nuclear. The only replacement is coal.
When does it stop? (Score:2, Insightful)
Reminds me of the shuttle launches in 1986. Just keep on launching them in colder and colder weather until one blows up. I guess we keep on recertifying nuke plants until one blows up.
A nuclear plant will eventually blow up/melt down in the US, just like in Russia and Japan. And when it does, we will suddenly be surprised at how costly it is to abandon a large section of the country. We will suddenly realize that nuclear is not a good deal at all. So why can't we just decide that right now, before we
Re: (Score:1)
Whether you choose TMI, Chernobyl or Fukishima, they are all examples how our inability to effectively remediate nuclear materials and render them harmless make it an incredibly dangerous source of energy that creates an unknowable risk of catastrophic losses. Until we have the ability to generate an infallible reactor AND safety turn nuclear waste into harmless substances, the specific mode of failure (bad pump, bad politics, bad earthquake) is irrelevant. That
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm a previous reactor operator myself and the spent fuel pools at our plants scare the hell out of me.
If you really were a "previous reactor operator" you wouldn't be scared of the spent fuel pools. ;)
My guess is, you were fired and have an axe to grind
Re: Thanks anti-nuke extremists! (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe I should have clarified. The pools are fine day to day. The fear is that god forbid they ever go dry. This could actually happen. Major grid down event, EMP attack, natural disaster, small astroid, terrorist attack, massively infectious pandemic, etc.
Though these are considered unlikely, a pool that is not continually filled and cooled will eventually boil off, resulting in the uncovered rods catching fire due to decay heat. This won't take long to happen either if the power to run the pumps goes away
Re: (Score:2)
Well you shouldn't be surprised, after all when you're dealing with 65-75 year old technology, there's no or very limited failsafes in the event that humans can't get to the reactor or anything and many of those are retrofit designs. All those points you're making? First generation reactors that should have been retired by 1990. Gen 4 is what it's at, but even Gen3+ reactors like the CANDU designs have no-intervention failover protections.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh people are eager to deal with it, entire reactor designs are meant to use that waste as their fuel source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The really stupid thing about your post is that you are talking about Containment and the parent is talking about Spent Fuel cooling pools.
Re: (Score:2)
Three mile island is FAR from the worst case in America, but since you mentioned it.
Three mile island actually suffered a partial core meltdown. A lot of people don't know. Partial core meltdown, think about that for a second, and that only a single correct decision prevented that from becoming a full core meltdown.
Nothing happened? I think the people in the river valley region where they have seen 100-1200% cancer increases and for a few so rare cancers as to be improbable to happen its hard to calculate.
Re: Thanks anti-nuke extremists! (Score:4, Interesting)
I was a reactor operator myself. The pools didn't bother me, because I was quite far away from them, with a lot of cement, lead and other heavy stuff, with meters to confirm things were hunky dory. If stuff was going pointy end up, hit the "SCRAM" button (and then go fill out all the forms of why that reactor was shut down.)
Only thing I would recommend is not to swordfight with either fuel or control rods.
Reactors are a long-since-solved problem. It is anti-nuke fear and NIMBY which keeps us from having cool things (thermal depolymerization, desal, etc.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The logic being that the deaths are *caused* by resistance to constructing newer, so power plants have had to do their best to extend the serviceable life of less safe reactors. It'd be one thing if the result were *shutting down* the reactors and not building new ones, but here we have the worst of both worlds, no newer reactors with safer designs, but still running older ones that are actually the problem. Newer designs engineer to address some of the most dangerous aspects.
Now I'm not sure I buy into t
Re:Thanks anti-nuke extremists! (Score:5, Insightful)
Building new reactors (Score:5, Informative)
no permitting has been allowed out of the NRC since 3 mile island happened in the late 70s,
Actually it has, it's just that we were just getting around to it - some new reactors are coming online this year. However, they were made at already existing plants, IE adding another reactor to an already existing nuclear power plant, and worse, it's the old design - they finished up a reactor that had construction suspended back in the '80s.
That being said, in order to keep nuclear power plant ages 'reasonable', you're looking at that we should be completing 4-8 reactors/plants a year. 200 reactors for current power needs, 400 to 'green up' our power by eliminating coal. Estimates, which is why I'm only being single digit specific. 200 plants, 4 built a year, gives you an average lifespan of 50 years. Probably means that you'd have a few shut down at 10,20, and 30, such that the maximum age at plants without earlier problems discovered would be around 60 years, in order to compensate for the 'lemon' reactors that have to be shut down early.
Re: (Score:2)
200 stations at conservatively $10bn each, accounting for evict l economy of scale and other costs... So $2 trillion, or $4 trillion if you want to go green.
Good luck funding that.
Re: (Score:2)
200 stations at conservatively $10bn each,
"Conservatively" should be closer to fact, because if we're building them that steadily, using a known design, economy of scale and experience *should* kick in and reduce costs some. Part of the problem with existing plants is that they're all effectively prototypes. Not much knowledge sharing between plants.
So $2 trillion, or $4 trillion if you want to go green.
This isn't a good way to look at it. That's 'merely' the fifty year cost. You hit year 50, you start retiring the plants built 50 years ago*. Remember, we're only building 4 of them a year(at the
Re: (Score:2)
It's not true to say that nuclear energy is 100% CO2 free. Some CO2 is emitted by the plant, and by efforts to mine and refine the fuel, and by efforts to store it long term. That's the other elephant in the room - long term storage.
It's better than coal, but in the medium term will lose out to renewables on cost, even for base load.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not true to say that nuclear energy is 100% CO2 free.
True, which is why I didn't say that. I said they wouldn't provide 100% CO2 free generation. I also switched from 'carbon free', which it isn't, to 'carbon neutral', implying that carbon would still be involved. Hell, there's currently carbon involved in solar and wind plants simply because you have to drive out there and inspect, clean, maintain, and repair them occasionally. That's typically done with the current predominant fuels, which is diesel and gasoline.
Mining and refining nuclear fuel is almos
In Situ Leach Mining (Score:2)
In Situ Leach Mining is pretty nasty and there are a couple of points worth considering about it.
First, it is restricted to soft ores. The *availability* of this method is not indicative of total supply. Uranium in hard ores still have to be refined with crushers before processing further.
Acid leech mining is 'in-situ' - meaning the acid is pumped into the ground to dissolve rock. The risk you introduce with this method is polluting the water table. Any failure to assess the geology properly and it pois
Re: (Score:2)
These are the options the Nuclear industry has to consider to get it's fuel, it's no better than coal this way, just differently bad.
The fact that you need to process at least 3 orders of magnitude less ore for a given amount of electrical power still means that, while a uranium mine might actually be worse at a local level, it's still better on the grand scale of things, because you don't need a lot of uranium mines to produce an equal amount of power.
That being said, if you look at my posting history you'll see that I'm very much in favor of reprocessing, to the point that I think that a Yucca Mountain style repository is missing the p
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how you consider "significant". Coal mining was, for the longest time, the single most polluting mining activity due to sheer scale. Uranium mining is so small that it's below things like mining for metals like copper and iron.
Here is what Dr. Gavin Mudd, Hydrogeologist had to say about it. [foe.org.au]
because you don't need a lot of uranium mines to produce an equal amount of power.
and you likewise don't need a lot of ISL to produce a disproportionate amount of pollution.
our heirs would be digging it up for the valuable stuff we buried.
So bury the fuel processing and reactors with them, make it closed loop and teach your heirs how to maintain it, then keep building reactors in the same facility. That would support your 40%, 20,20,20 percent vision for a very long time. States would clamor over themselves to place such facilities as it would also attract industrial power users and infra
Re: (Score:2)
And that's pocket change, really. War on Drugs is costing us $15B/year. War on terror runs about $100B/year. [forbes.com]
You do realize there is a HUGE difference in money that we all spend through the government (See above) and money that private companies spend because they believe that they will make a profit on it (It is cheaper to produce nuke power than it is other power, otherwise please build the other power plants).
Your guess on solar/wind is way off base. The best you could do is get 10-15% from combined solar/wind, so that leaves 65% hydrocarbon/nuke. Yes there are large scale hydro plants, but they only add up
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize there is a HUGE difference in money that we all spend through the government (See above) and money that private companies spend because they believe that they will make a profit on it (It is cheaper to produce nuke power than it is other power, otherwise please build the other power plants).
Then you make it profitable for them. Personally, I'd start straight up taxing pollution. Charge $x per ton of mercury/arsenic/lead/NOx/CO2 and you'd see power producers greening up.
Your guess on solar/wind is way off base. The best you could do is get 10-15% from combined solar/wind, so that leaves 65% hydrocarbon/nuke. Yes there are large scale hydro plants, but they only add up to about 7%, you might be able to get this to 20, but I wouldn't like to see the natural disasters that follow. Interestingly solar doesn't even rate a mention (gets included with "Other" at 2.1 percent).
No, 10-15% is NOT the 'best you could get'. Hawaii is past 15% on solar already, and while the power company is making alarming noises, they still have juice. Next, I didn't say 20% hydro. I said 20% OTHER(including hydro). So that's 7% hydro, plus a mix of 'everything else' - geothermal, biomass, tidal, gas reclamation fr
Nuclear saves lives (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Next Big Future [nextbigfuture.com] also has a good writeup:
Nuclear: 0.04 deaths per TWH
Hydro: 0.10 (Euro standard)
Wind: 0.15
Rooftop solar: 0.44 (mostly people falling off of roofs installing them)
Natural gas: 4
Coal, US: 15 (China is 278)
The trouble with nuclear... (Score:3)
The other problem nuclear has is that it while safety is cheap per MW it's expensive as hell on the balance sheet. At least in America we've got a long history of privatizing things to hand off the profits to somebody's brother in law. But sooner or later inflation bites into their pr
All results linger (Score:2)
is that the results linger. They'll be cancer victims out of Fukushima for decades. Or maybe not. It's hard to say. Too many people have a vested interest in both camps to be sure how many will get cancer from the disaster.
As the AC mentioned - how long does it take for the CO2 from burning fossil fuels to go away? How long for the mercury, sulfur, NOx and everything else to degrade?
At least radioactivity decreases over time. Much of the rest of the stuff is here to stay until we go in and clean it up.
And the death toll from nuclear DOES include estimated deaths from nuclear disasters.
At least in America we've got a long history of privatizing things to hand off the profits to somebody's brother in law. But sooner or later inflation bites into their profits and they start cutting corners....
Remember, I want to build NEW safer plants. Second, the USA suffered the first major accident, it hasn't suffered a major one since. Thus f
Re: (Score:2)
Fukushima was OLDER than Chernobyl. The results of a nuclear disaster at a positively ancient nuclear plant linger. So what? We aren't talking about building ancient nuke plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Fukushima was OLDER than Chernobyl.
You want fun? Fukushima, depending on how you measure it, was older than TMI. They broke ground and started construction a year or so earlier on Fukushima than they did for TMI, though construction lasted for longer because they built more reactors.
Nimby (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We can run them for thousands of years. Once we get a Star Trek teleporter, we can use it to beam the core into space in case of meltdown. For now, we can use lucky rabbit feet.
Neutron embritlement (Score:2)
The problem is neutron embrittlement of the containment vessel. There comes a time where it must be replaced and at that point all that's left is the steam infrastructure.
My AC you are onto it, why don't you login and post as a user? I'm pretty sure you posed about the spent fuel pools as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is neutron embrittlement of the containment vessel. There comes a time where it must be replaced and at that point all that's left is the steam infrastructure.
I would mod you up if I had the points.
The neutron bombardment literally causes hydrolysis, and the hydrogen actually penetrates hardened nickel steel! When this steel expands and contracts with thermal changes the steel literally has sections that pop out, sometimes resulting in cracks at joints or even along the entire plumbing -- including the pressure vessel itself.
There is a Swiss reactor that we literally refer to as the Swiss cheese reactor for this reason. The cracks there are not just in the plumbi
Re:Thanks anti-nuke extremists! (Score:5, Informative)
To make plutonium for weapons you have to run the reactor is a completely uneconomic way (balls out for a very short time). Otherwise you just get a mix of plutonium isotopes and you are back to running ultracenterfuges to get your weapons grade.
So aside from being completely wrong, you have a point.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't confuse the faithful with the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
All reactors are dual purpose. But it depends on how you run them.
Initial run on uranium makes pure weapons grade plutonium, available for easy chemical extraction. But run them for any length and you have mixed isotopes again and you might as well have just refined the uranium.
Re: (Score:2)
To get weapons grade plutonium you always have to run it for a very short time, at any enrichment. Which fucks the economics of power generation but isn't any kind of technical challenge.
Re:Thanks anti-nuke extremists! (Score:4, Insightful)
So your theory is they didn't know what they were doing and overbuilt?
If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would stop embarrassing yourself.
Re:Thanks anti-nuke extremists! (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. The light-water reactors used in the U.S. are not particularly useful at making weapons grade plutonium. If they were so wonderful at churning out nukes, then places like Hanford Washington would never have existed.
You seem to be confusing the safe light-water commercial reactors used in the U.S. with the RBMK reactors that were used in the Soviet Union. They really were designed for dual-use operation and are inherently less safe than U.S. commercial reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
The poster was not claiming dual use reactors. Presumably meant that because research was pushed in the direction of development of uranium based reactors, it was less work to derive commercial reactors from that research than to research thorium based reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why aren't they (the anti-nuke people) willing/able to pursuit the more logical course of action--the denial of operating extensions for obsolete, unsafe reactors
Because "they" are just some imaginary straw-men that /. loves to bash whenever their fanboy technology continues to fail their expectations? People against new nuclear plants are, of course, also against license extensions. You making a straw-man argument that basically questions the rationality of the irrational straw-man that you and your ilk created is testament to the complete cluster-fuck of nonsense this topic has at /. Seriously, you people should get out more, instead of circle jerking each other o
Re:Thanks anti-nuke extremists! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about NIMBY. People who don't have nukes in their backyard will fight to keep them away because they fear what they don't understand. They also have more to lose. For people who already live near nuke plants, if their property values were going to go down because of the plant, it has already happened.
The plants that are already there have been safe for decades and people are used to them. It's also very difficult for anti-nukes to call for a plant with a safe record to shutdown because they get less traction suggesting that a plant that has been safe for decades is somehow a looming menace.
Of course, when a Chernobyl or Fukushima happens, then the fear level can be ramped up enough to deny extensions for even safely operating plants with a good record.
It's not that we don't understand... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a mix of things...
First off, I suspect most of them don't actually know that their local power is coming from nuclear. Of those that do, well, shutting them down means no power for their TVs, stoves, things like th
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: read up what 'base load' means.
Actually it exactly means what the words imply, I don't get why you americans write so much nonsense about 'base load'.
Another hint: your fridge does not care, your grid does not care if 'base load' comes from wind or any other plant.
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of days ago, the poster you replied to, claimed that electrons move at a couple of centimeters per second. Yes, they insinuated that I could outrun electricity. Not bad for a guy who's 58.
Anyhow, my point is that they're not that bright but have a strange tendency to tell others that they're stupid. There's a lot of things that I don't know but I can't imagine being quite so dumb as to think I knew everything. You can safely giggle at them. I don't think anyone will complain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit! I am, indeed, mistaken and I offer my most humble apologies. I thought the electrons moved faster than that? Heh. I should know this stuff. :/
Welp... Where's my crow? I shall eat it and dine on it in public.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of an ocean wave before the break where the wave moves quickly but the kelp above it barely moves at all. Electricity isn't the movement of electrons, it's the movement of electromagnetic energy where electrons are the medium that it travels through.
Re: (Score:1)
What is different about the extension approval process that it see more success than the creation of newer, safer reactors?
It's vastly easier. They're already built, so you can't block construction (which is the most common way new power plants have been obstructed).
Re: (Score:3)
What is different about the extension approval process that it see more success than the creation of newer, safer reactors?
Because the extension of an existing reactor is WAY cheaper than building a new reactor. New reactors are not cost competitive with shale gas. Watts Bar [wikipedia.org] is only being completed because they have a guaranteed price for their power. If they had to sell power at market rates, the project would have been cancelled years ago.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but to also be fair, the high costs of operating a nuke plant are due in large part to the assumed liability of operating one which is ramped up by anti-nukes.
I agree that nuclear plants can be undercut by gas, but nuclear would be much cheaper if it had been allowed to be built out and have a sane approval process. And maybe we could fulfill our energy needs without fracking gas into people's water supplies.
It is sad that due to fear of the unknown, we walk straight into the arms of fossil fuels and
Re: Thanks anti-nuke extremists! (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone who works in the wholesale power industry, the problem is more complex.
We are in a unique period of overcapacity, as new technologies are displacing the old. Nuclear capital costs of new construction are astronomical, which is why in the deregulated open markets of the USA, new construction is natural gas powered and government backed wind. The wind is being build in areas of the country (Illinois) that were historically heavy industry (pre existing ehv transmission), but with factory load moving overseas, the Midwest has more generation than demand. The energy is being bottled due to lack of transmission investment, which is leading to negative wholesale pricing. That's great for consumers, terrible for base load nuclear. New nuclear is being built at an existing site in a regulated southern state, where the costs can be passed on to consumers in the rate base.
Re: (Score:1)
How do you get away with claiming that 'government backed wind' is part of a deregulated open market? It's a blatant distortion of what would be an open market.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what we feel too. When wind units are allowed to bid negative offers, because their operations costs are offset by government-funded renewable energy credits, it distorts the market to the point that traditional generation cannot compete. This is why the "expiration" of the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit was such a big deal, in that everyone had to "break ground" by 12/31/2014, which is why there is a flood of windpower energy this year. You cannot build transmission this fast.
http://ener [energy.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't the insurance industry insure new plants?
For the same reason they did not insure the old ones.
AFAiK no single plant on earth has an insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe ... or more precisely Germany and France: they are only insured for common stuff like a fire in the garage.
And I'm pretty sure no plant on the world is insured against a nuclear accident and release of nuclear material.
Re: (Score:2)
They can, but it would be obvious what operator was doing. You don't refuel every month unless you are making weapons grade.
Re: (Score:1)
or we may of had more Fukushima like plans owned by MR buns where safety is cut in the name of profit.
Re: (Score:1)
Two things:
1) "may have". NOT "may of". Makes you look illiterate.
2) If the death rate from nuclear power were 1000 times as high as it currently is, it would still be safer than coal or oil. If it were ten times safer than it is, it would still be safer than rooftop solar.
So, why are you advocating replacing nuclear with other power sources that are far less safe than nuclear???
Re:Thanks anti-nuke extremists! (Score:4, Interesting)
Which achieves fossil fuel plants where safety isn't even really a concern to begin with because we're less afraid of lung cancer and radiation from coal than evil radiation from heavily shielded nuclear plants.
We're hyper-aware of nuclear safety, but there are industrial accidents all the time that kill lots of people due to cost cutting and poor management. Something like solar would just shift the danger to fabrication plants which use plenty of toxic chemicals and batteries which are basically made of toxic materials. We accept that because we're being trained to believe that solar power is light and airy and clean and totally safe, but it's only "safe" in the generation. There's nothing clean about what goes into solar plants and what happens when you decommission the apparatus to support it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you so much anti-nuke extremists. Thanks to your inability to look at the bigger picture, we get to enjoy nuclear reactors using designs from the 1950's well into the 21st century instead of actually using safer, modern designs.
It's like if the safety problems with the Corvair had been used to shutdown all production of newer car models.
I would love for nuclear power to be more widespread, but the Nuclear Power Industry keeps giving people good reasons to be against nuclear power.
For example, instead of properly maintaining their reactors, they keep asking the NRC for lower standards so existing reactors can continue to operate as is. The companies operating nuclear reactors have a 60 year track record of greed, corruption, dishonesty, massive cost over-runs (passed on to consumers) and general incompetence.
And even without all those pro
Re: (Score:1)
The nuclear power industry might be asking for loosened standards because the standards are so high as to be unreasonable.
There's a meme that is floating around the internet with a picture of Grand Central Terminal in New York explaining that the radiation in the station from natural decay of elements in the granite walls would be high enough to have any nuclear power plant in the USA shut down. People obviously visit the terminal daily with no signs of ill effects but that level of radiation would be into
Re:Thanks anti-nuke extremists! (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with anti-nuclear campaigning, and everything to do with getting maximum return from the investment in the plant. Why spend billions building s new plant when you can keep the old one running for a fraction of that?
Until a new plant will cost less / make more money, they will of course try to keep the old one going.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you so much anti-nuke extremists. Thanks to your inability to look at the bigger picture, we get to enjoy nuclear reactors using designs from the 1950's well into the 21st century instead of actually using safer, modern designs.
Is it actually a problem to be using the existing reactor? I understand modern designs are better. But if there's an existing plant that seems to be working well, is it really cost effective to decommission it, tear it down, and build a new one in its place? Or to find a new location, build a new reactor there, and still decommission this one?
(my impression was that decommissioning costs are extremely high because there's so much material that has levels of radioactivity that are perfectly fine and safe in their normal place inside a working reactor, but can't be released where environmental forces will break them down and spread them around).
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you so much anti-nuke extremists. Thanks to your inability to look at the bigger picture, we get to enjoy nuclear reactors using designs from the 1950's well into the 21st century instead of actually using safer, modern designs.
It's like if the safety problems with the Corvair had been used to shutdown all production of newer car models.
Oh, well played sir. So you figure that after all the money they spent on making this reactor they wouldn't try to extend it's lifetime? Makes no financial sense that they would decommision thise reacter tear it down, then spend billions more building a new safer modern designed one H^H^H^H^H^H^
Wait a second!!!!! You just said that nuc reactors online today are unsafe. Turn in your nuc card ya bastard, there are some sins that cannot be forgiven, and you just commetted the worst one
Textbook ad hom argument going on here (Score:2)
In this case 1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect [merriam-webster.com]
You don't care about their concerns, just that they don't see your 'idealized' version of the Nuclear Industry that only exists in your head. You criticize them for not understanding your point of veiw and your not even interested in theirs which you dismiss as invalid.
Your "argument" isn't even supported by the laws governing site selection [slashdot.org] of Nuclear power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you so much cheap fossil fuel prices.
There. Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why bother? (Score:1)
I've been assured right here on this site that we will be able to 3D print anything, using materials from space, that's assuming space-based solar power doesn't make that moot.
Space. 3D printing. Stop being Luddites!
Re: (Score:2)
I've been assured right here on this site that we will be able to 3D print anything, using materials from space, that's assuming space-based solar power doesn't make that moot.
Space. 3D printing. Stop being Luddites!
Beautiful technology, beautiful idea. It's Solar and Nuclear combined. I commend you Mr AC.
Cheaper to extend (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
he didn't his computer shut down when the power plant went silent. waiting for pigeons to shit their message into /. to complete his statement.
Re: (Score:3)
Costs money to build a new plant when you shut the old one down. Even if the new plant is coal, oil, natural gas, solar, or wind. Lots of it.
And time. Mustn't forget that part.
So still cheaper to extend the life of an existing plant than to build a new one (even if the new one is NOT nuclear).
Uh huh (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't it. The worse that could happen is that reactor head replacement would be done when needed, so it would start to leak, into containment. Then the thing would be powered down and cooled for weeks on recirculated coolant.......*yawn*
Are you imaging some kind of massive nuclear explosion? a dirty bomb kind of scenario? sorry, the real world is more boring.
Doesn't sound that great (Score:2)
Surry Nuclear Reactors To Extend Lifespan To 80 Years
Extend? I was hoping to live about that long anyway. And I thought nuclear reactors were supposed to give you super powers.
Yikes! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone be afraid to heat their house with propane?
Its pretty safe. Well unless its contaminated with fluorine.
http://www.sequoyahcountytimes... [sequoyahcountytimes.com]
No one seems willing to pay for the damages either....
Link that's easier with noscript (Score:2)
The Washington Times [washingtontimes.com]. Say what you will about their ownership and/or editorial slant, but it works right out of the box without trying to figure what you need to enable.
Needed (Score:5, Informative)
They need this. Dominion has a significant number of older (built in late '50's and early '60's) coal fired plants, which are all being shut down over the next couple of years because they cannot be brought up to a high enough standard to meet the new EPA requirements. They are also shutting down an 800 MWe oil fired unit built in the 1970s, because of the new EPA requirements and because it's not very economical to operate any more (it was only being used for peaking and to supply base load if one of the nuclear plants was shut down for service). We already depend on those nuclear plants for base load and we will be leaning on them more in the future
Dominion submitted an application to add a third reactor to the North Anna site in 2007. It's been in review since then. As I understand it, the plan is to put in a third generation ESBWR that will nearly double the North Anna site's output. The reactor design was finally approved late 2014. Hopefully they'll get site approval to start construction soon.
Thanks pro-nuke extremists! (Score:3)
Thank you so much pro-nuke extremists. Thanks to your inability to look at reality you overlooked that placement of Nuclear facilities is governed by a Suitability Criteria that is an act of law. [nrc.gov]
It's pretty ridiculous to think greenpeace, hippys in combi vans, NIMBYS or any one else for that matter has any influence at all as all of their concerns are addressed in Section C.9 [nrc.gov]. Pointing fingers is just a way to ignore the process and economics involved in proposing and building a Nuclear Reactor. It is a complete ad hom argument when it is made.
Especially when you consider there has been [nrc.gov] a bunch of GenIII reactors proposed. So I don't understand how their or anyone else's vision has anything to do with what reactor technology is deployed.
It's like the safety problems with the Corvair had been left in the production of newer car and they added some new untested features but they think it's better.
coxsbazarlive.com (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Those things were over engineered to begin with, they were built to withstand Cold War nuclear strikes to begin with. With a few safety upgrades and good engineering, these things can run a very long time before needing to be dismantled.