The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to approve licenses to build to two new nuclear reactors Thursday, the first approvals in over 30 years.

The reactors are being built in Georgia by a consortium of utilities led by Southern Co. (SO, Fortune 500) They will be sited at the Vogtle nuclear power plant complex, about 170 miles east of Atlanta. The plant already houses two older reactors. . . .

The first reactor is expected to come online in 2016 and the second one in 2017, according to Southern Co.
The AP 1000 is the newest NRC-approved nuclear reactor. This would be the first one built in the United States, although four are already under construction in China, said Scott Shaw, a Westinghouse spokesman.

Critics have said the containment walls of the AP 1000 aren't strong enough to withstand a terrorist attack, but Shaw says they were redesigned after September 11, 2001 and have held up during simulations.

He also said the design's passive cooling system makes it much safer than older designs. The AP 1000 uses gravity and condensation -- not electricity -- to cool the fuel rods.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/0.../index.htm?hpt=hp_t3

Gravity for cooling, now there's an idea. Just the same, I'm not exactly thrilled about this.

What kind of backup systems will they have if some kind of disaster knocks out gravity?

There is no way, if it was only just approved, that they will have it built and operating by 2016.

quote Originally posted by 8Ball: There is no way, if it was only just approved, that they will have it built and operating by 2016.

I think they will.
They've been pushing dirt around and doing preliminary construction work for several years already, getting the site ready.
And this is just the first additional unit. The other unit is supposed to take an additional year.
Remember, there are already two similar units in operation at this location. They've done this before. They've got a pretty good idea.

Of course if the antagonists tie it up in court, you could be right.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 02-08-2012).]

What kind of red tape did they cut to get them up so quick? Last I heard it took 20 years from approval to actually making power.

Yea, I just don't see it happening.. I mean look at BFN. The plant is already partially constructed and they still won't have it making power for likely 6 more years.

All I can think of is that a lot of the supporting infrastructure is already there. As well as the transmission lines, and etc.
Remember, this is an expansion of an operating facility. It's not like they're starting with wilderness.

BFN... Is that the one near Guntersville?
I suspect that since it's sat for so long, that a lot of things have to be recertified, re-licensed, or maybe even refitted.
I'm sure that a whole pile of new regs got thrown at it.
Just speculation.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 02-08-2012).]

It took them from Dec. 1975 till March 1988 to build the STNP down near Bay City Texas, and it was among the last nukes built in this country. They had major problems tho with the original project contractor--Brown and Root and ended up firing and replacing them with Betchel.

I envy ya Raydar--you gonna have electricity that's too cheap to even meter--but I bet you don't get no flyin car.

I don't want no flyin' car. You already know how we drive in Atlanta.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 02-09-2012).]

Yall actually call that driving?

I believe that is the one.. And yes a lot of re-certification work had to be done, but that was finished 2 years ago, as I understand.

Georgia....the same place they came up with THIS



and somebody wants to give them nuke capability.....uh, yeh.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 02-09-2012).]

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Georgia....the same place they came up with THIS

We wanted to make out Canadian guests feel at home.

(...with apologies to the Canadians who are not posterior orifices. )

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 02-09-2012).]

It's additional reactors at an existing site. Much of the time consuming site prep was already done. It doesn't take 20 years to do the actual building - it takes that long due to red tape, etc. With most of that out of the way, especially if the site was originally planned for expansion, they can move straight to construction.

The Sharon Harris plant here has 1 reactor, but was designed for 4. Adding the other 3 is simply a matter of building where they're already planned to go in.

Glad to hear it

Frankly, we need more nuke power plants.

Steve,

You are right about portions of the the infrastructure support already being in place. However, they will need to add more switchyards and transmission lines to handle the increased electrical supply. I know a fair amount about these units since I was a part of the original design team for the smaller AP 600 unit which previously received NRC certification as one of the pre approved "Standard" plant designs. The AP 1000 design is very similar and ended up changing a few component sizes such as the pressurizer and some pumps. These designs are constructed using the modular component methodology and are anticipated to have a construction time of around four years.

Two additional AP 1000 units are also scheduled for construction in South Carolina about 25 miles from my house at an existing nuclear unit site. I would like to see a few more generating units like this constructed to provide long term power supplies.

Nelson

quote Originally posted by Raydar: All I can think of is that a lot of the supporting infrastructure is already there. As well as the transmission lines, and etc. Remember, this is an expansion of an operating facility. It's not like they're starting with wilderness. BFN... Is that the one near Guntersville? I suspect that since it's sat for so long, that a lot of things have to be recertified, re-licensed, or maybe even refitted. I'm sure that a whole pile of new regs got thrown at it. Just speculation.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Frankly, we need more nuke power plants.

I guess I missed it. They've found a way to deal with radioactive waste now? Well then I'm on board too!

Just to throw my hat in the ring, I am also very much in favor of MORE nuke plants. Wish they'd build one in my pasture, but I don't have enough pond for a cooling system. It would be nice to have a big pond with year round warm water tho--stocked with redfish.

I think this is a very good thing. We need to build newer reactors with better safe guards to replace the olders ones.

Approved.

I just received this from my local GA power representative.

quote Good news! Just moments ago the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted to approve the company’s request for a combined construction and operating license (COL) to begin full construction on Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4. These are the nation’s first new nuclear units to receive approval to begin construction in more than 30 years. Vogtle Units 3 and 4 will Benefit Georgia · Represents a $14 billion investment in the state · The project will create up to 5,000 on site jobs and 25,000 direct and indirect jobs · 800 permanent jobs once the units are in operation · Saves customers up to $6 billion over the life of the plant versus other energy sources The company is in a position to deliver nearly $1 billion in benefits through the Department of Energy loan guarantees, production tax credits, and recovering financing costs during construction. We expect unit 3 to begin operating in 2016 and Unit 4 in 2017, in order to provide clean, safe, affordable and reliable energy for more than 500,000 homes and businesses. Southern Nuclear is overseeing the construction and will operate the two new units for Georgia Power and co-owners Oglethorpe Power corporation, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Dalton Utilities. Georgia Power owns 45.7 percent of the new units, with a certified cost of $6.1 billion. As we move forward with the construction and operation of Vogtle units 3 and 4 we recognize the importance of remaining accountable to you, ensuring that you receive the full value of your investment in Vogtle. If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Saves consumers 6 billion over the life. I would like a little more information. Does this include waste storage? Yucca mountain is no longer an option is it? Does it include decommissioning costs? Is it based on taxpayer subsidies? So many questions I have, but typically anyone trying to sell will leave out all the negatives.

The subsidies per kwh produced by nuclear are WAY below that of the new green technologies. Dumping more money into them will only drive the cost per kwh up as more expensive fringe methods of producing electricity are financed.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 02-09-2012).]

Way more? Do you have any numbers to back that up or is that just your opinion? Just asking.

Solar = 15.3 times more

Wind = 14.7 times more

Does that qualify as "way more"?



http://www.eia.doe.gov/ener..._subsidies_large.gif

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 02-09-2012).]

Currently, "Waste Storage" Is putting the spent rods in a cooling pond for a good long while, then putting them in sealed casks and stacking them until our government decides what to do with them...

I say launch that crap into space.

Transmutate the radioactive waste into non-radioactive waste.

Well That's SIMPLE!!! Just flip this atom with that atom and POOF!! Chocolate Sundae!

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Solar = 15.3 times more Wind = 14.7 times more Does that qualify as "way more"?

Yes, but let's not get carried away with that "making sense" stuff.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Frankly, we need more nuke power plants.

quote Originally posted by Gokart Mozart:

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Just to throw my hat in the ring, I am also very much in favor of MORE nuke plants. Wish they'd build one in my pasture, but I don't have enough pond for a cooling system. It would be nice to have a big pond with year round warm water tho--stocked with redfish.

Except I don't have a pond, will a year round spring work. It's ICE COLD!

Brad

quote Originally posted by hnthomps: Steve, You are right about portions of the the infrastructure support already being in place. However, they will need to add more switchyards and transmission lines to handle the increased electrical supply. I know a fair amount about these units since I was a part of the original design team for the smaller AP 600 unit which previously received NRC certification as one of the pre approved "Standard" plant designs. The AP 1000 design is very similar and ended up changing a few component sizes such as the pressurizer and some pumps. These designs are constructed using the modular component methodology and are anticipated to have a construction time of around four years. Two additional AP 1000 units are also scheduled for construction in South Carolina about 25 miles from my house at an existing nuclear unit site. I would like to see a few more generating units like this constructed to provide long term power supplies. Nelson

I'm sure they'll have to add a switchyard and transmission capacity. I was speaking in general terms. As in "better than starting with swampland".
However you slice it, they've already got a huge head start on the project.

I'd like to talk with you sometime. I didn't know you were involved in the design of the reactors. Cool!
Actually, you never said much about what you did.
I've been with Southern for 20 years. Most recently in the SCADA and AMR telecommunications area.
My background is telecommunications, but I can also talk fairly intelligently with the system operators, since I use their screens.

quote Originally posted by 8Ball: Currently, "Waste Storage" Is putting the spent rods in a cooling pond for a good long while, then putting them in sealed casks and stacking them until our government decides what to do with them... I say launch that crap into space.

I believe that the casks are "dry" storage, and quite stable. Makes me wonder about the cooling pools that they have at Fukushima. Maybe they have to sit there for a while and decay some more before they can go into dry storage.

Yucca mountain was nixed by Obama. I still hold hope that the decision will be reversed once he is out of office. (To be fair, I know very little about the place, but I have to believe that it's been researched to a fare-thee-well, by now, and the people who make the decisions understand the suitability - or lack of - of the site.)

Launching it into space sounds like a superb idea until one of the booster malfunctions. Then we'll be worrying about the effect it will have on the ocean.
Sadly, nobody has a flawless record regarding rocket launches.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 02-09-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Launching it into space sounds like a superb idea until one of the booster malfunctions. Then we'll be worrying about the effect it will have on the ocean. Sadly, nobody has a flawless record regarding rocket launches.

They need to hurry up and build that dang Space Elevator Then they can slowly lift it into space.. and jettison it into deep space once out of our atmosphere.

Could you refer me to some more current figures? Or just how to research them? Those are pretty old dates. I don't entirely understand some of the parameters and would like to look into it in further depth. I'm not saying that you're not right, but I've never seen any post of yours where you could find any fault at all with nuclear power. OK, I guess I am questioning your objectivity. For myself I'm trying to see all sides of the issue. I don't think that nuclear energy is inherently evil, but I won't take everything that the nuclear industry says as gospel. They have their agenda and I believe that they will avoid as much as they can putting out any truth that is detrimental to the industry, while promoting anything that will support what they are doing. I know, that's pretty much human nature too, but it's not entirely honest either.

right

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Solar = 15.3 times more Wind = 14.7 times more Does that qualify as "way more"? http://www.eia.doe.gov/ener..._subsidies_large.gif

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-09-2012).]