First new US nuclear reactor in 20 years goes live

[Independent voter]

Read somewhere that 33% of all green house gasses in the US come from coal fired electric power plants. Replacing these coal plants with nuclear would put a noticeable dent in global warming since the US is so big.

Some worry about nuclear power but with today's tech I think it's pretty safe.






http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/us/ten...ant/index.html


(CNN) — The Tennessee Valley Authority is celebrating an event 43 years in the making: the completion of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.

In 1973, the TVA, one of the nation's largest public power providers, began building two reactors that combined promised to generate enough power to light up 1.3 million homes.

The first reactor, delayed by design flaws, eventually went live in 1996. Now, after billions of dollars in budget overruns, the second reactor has finally started sending power to homes and businesses.

Standing in front of both reactors Wednesday, TVA President Bill Johnson said Watts Bar 2, the first US reactor to enter commercial operation in 20 years, would offer clean, cheap and reliable energy to residents of several southern states for at least another generation.

"If you're in the nuclear business, the sight behind me is a lovely sight," Johnson said. "It's a sight we've been waiting for some years to see, which is steam coming out of both cooling towers, meaning that both units are running. You can hear that turbine rolling. It's a great day."

Falling out of favor

When the TVA first proposed Watts Bar, the US nuclear energy was in the midst of a golden age as scores of nuclear reactors received regulatory approval during the 1970s.

TVA started work on Watts Bar reactors in subsequent years. Before the plant went live, a partial meltdown at Three Mile Island happened in 1979. While no one died, the incident placed the US on high alert, and led to increased regulations that hampered the rapid expansion of the nuclear industry.

Seven years later, a far greater catastrophe followed with the major meltdown at Chernobyl, bringing the American industry to a standstill. Following Chernobyl, American utilities behind nuclear reactor proposals faced skyrocketing costs that forced many of those companies to nix those plans.

As that happened, though, other major world powers jumped on the nuclear bandwagon. France today gets three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear -- the US only gets one-fifth -- and China recently has pledged to double its nuclear capacity before the decade's end.

Faced with rising costs in the US -- as well as the public's growing anti-nuke sentiment -- TVA neared bankruptcy and had little choice but to suspend plans for the second Watts Bar reactor in the late 1980s.

Before Watts Bar 2, the last time an American reactor had fired up was in 1996. It was Watts Bar 1--and according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, it cost $6.8 billion, far greater than the original price tag at $370 million.

In the 2000s, some American power companies, faced with growing environmental regulations, eyed nuclear power again as a top alternative to fossil fuels such as coal and oil. A handful of companies, taking advantage of federal loan guarantees from the Bush administration, revived nuclear reactor proposals in a period now known as the so-called "nuclear renaissance."

Eventually, nuclear regulators started to green light new reactors, including ones in Georgia and South Carolina. In 2007, the TVA resumed construction on Watts Bar 2, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The TVA originally said it would take five years to complete.

In the face of new momentum, though, some environmental groups including the Sierra Club have continued to oppose the reactor's construction following the 2011 Fukushima meltdown.

"It's 30 years later and billions of dollars over budget, but if it is going to operate we hope it is done safely and properly by TVA," Stephen Smith, executive director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, told the Chattanooga Times Free Press this year.

[Damajin]

Cool article, bad formatting.

[Medusa Cascade]

Just need to get some of that bacteria that eats radioactive material I read about

[Garnier Fructis]

Good.

In the face of new momentum, though, some environmental groups including the Sierra Club have continued to oppose the reactor's construction following the 2011 Fukushima meltdown.

The great tragedy of modern environmentalism is opposition to nuclear energy. It is, fundamentally, an exercise in shooting ourselves in the foot.

[jimboa24]

Good.



The great tragedy of modern environmentalism is opposition to nuclear energy. It is, fundamentally, an exercise in shooting ourselves in the foot.

It's what gives fuel to the conservative criticism that environmentalism, or at least politically-charged radical environmentalism's true goal isn't to protect the environment so much as it is to stunt economic growth and oppose any tech that isn't solar or wind-power based.

[Garnier Fructis]

It's what gives fuel to the conservative criticism that environmentalism, or at least politically-charged radical environmentalism's true goal isn't to protect the environment so much as it is to stunt economic growth and oppose any tech that isn't solar or wind-power based.

It's extremely short sighted reasoning. Climate change is a problem that gets progressively harder to solve, and happens on a global scale. Nuclear is clean in the carbon sense and can generate appreciable amounts of energy. It has its own problems with storage of radioactive materials, but those are local problems, and nowhere near as big in scope.

Switching to natural gas and nuclear, eventually phasing out natural gas as alternatives become more viable, and then far down the line phasing out nuclear would be the way to go. Instead, we're passing up the efficient low emissions solution and just waiting for alternatives to slowly take over. It's slow, and we're going to pay the price down the road for our lack of pragmatism. And we're doing it because 'nuclear is scary!'

[madethisfor1post]

It's extremely short sighted reasoning. Climate change is a problem that gets progressively harder to solve, and happens on a global scale. Nuclear is clean in the carbon sense and can generate appreciable amounts of energy. It has its own problems with storage of radioactive materials, but those are local problems, and nowhere near as big in scope.

Switching to natural gas and nuclear, eventually phasing out natural gas as alternatives become more viable, and then far down the line phasing out nuclear would be the way to go. Instead, we're passing up the efficient low emissions solution and just waiting for alternatives to slowly take over. It's slow, and we're going to pay the price down the road for our lack of pragmatism. And we're doing it because 'nuclear is scary!'

They just don't know how to pronounce it.

[Independent voter]

http://gizmodo.com/the-trick-to-disp...nin-1460118231

There's a process where they can turn radioactive waste into glass bricks. Even if the glass bricks are exposed and fall on the ground the radioactive waste won't sink into the ground and contaminate ground water.

[Nihilist74]

Would be great if they could put this into practice, killing three birds with one stone. Creating clean safer energy, using up weapons grade plutonium and creating high amounts of energy.

[Independent voter]

Would be great if they could put this into practice, killing three birds with one stone. Creating clean safer energy, using up weapons grade plutonium and creating high amounts of energy.

I think Fallout and Hollywood have pretty much killed the idea of reactors in the home. A lot of people who say they back science don't adhere to science when it comes to nuclear stuff.

[caervek]

Excellent news, hopefully the rest of the world can follow suit.

It's somewhat comical when you look at the big three in Europe, Britain is mostly Gas plants and going into fracking now to support it as wind/solar aren't helping, Germany is mostly coal and trying to get out via solar/etc, and France is 75%+ Nuclear and perfectly fine lol.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I remain skeptical, obviously I hope nothing bad happens. Still skeptical though.

[Stacyrect]

If america went 100% green, it would essentially put a molecular sized dent in green house emissions. You wanna see a big dent in emissions go talk to china and russia, the worlds largest green house gas emitters.

[unbound]

Read somewhere that 33% of all green house gasses in the US come from coal fired electric power plants. Replacing these coal plants with nuclear would put a noticeable dent in global warming since the US is so big.

Some worry about nuclear power but with today's tech I think it's pretty safe.

It isn't about the direct safety that causes a lot of concern, it is the leftover waste. Keep in mind that leftover waste is not just the depleted uranium (aka nuclear fuel...which we are getting better about recycling through things like breeder reactors), but also a good chunk of surrounding equipment that becomes radioactive as well (aka intermediate level waste). At this time, nuclear is the better option, but I have yet to see good discussions from very many scientists, much less politicians, on how we address the long-term problem of nuclear waste.

[Garnier Fructis]

If america went 100% green, it would essentially put a molecular sized dent in green house emissions. You wanna see a big dent in emissions go talk to china and russia, the worlds largest green house gas emitters.

This is not even remotely close to being true.

Global greenhouse gas emissions by country (the current state has China with more, us with less, but this gets the point across):


China has more emissions. But Russia emits less than third of what we do.

If we went 100% green, we would make a large impact. Not only would it be a substantial reduction in global emissions just from removing our slice of the pie, but the technology we create along the way would help the rest of the world reduce emissions.

[Dsonsion]

I remain skeptical, obviously I hope nothing bad happens. Still skeptical though.

Why? How would it happen?

[Deleted]

Great! So much more chances and possibilities. I wished these reactors would be a lot more common in the world.

[Deleted]

Would be great if they could put this into practice, killing three birds with one stone. Creating clean safer energy, using up weapons grade plutonium and creating high amounts of energy.

The problem with this is building the salt reactors.
Nothing in this was 'new'.

[Nihilist74]

I think Fallout and Hollywood have pretty much killed the idea of reactors in the home. A lot of people who say they back science don't adhere to science when it comes to nuclear stuff.

Well it wouldn't necessarily be for individual homes but it would be more localized. Maybe a few of them for really large cities depending on how much electricity they need.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with this is building the salt reactors.
Nothing in this was 'new'.

Yah its not really a new idea but it is a good idea.

[Sargerasraider]

It's what gives fuel to the conservative criticism that environmentalism, or at least politically-charged radical environmentalism's true goal isn't to protect the environment so much as it is to stunt economic growth and oppose any tech that isn't solar or wind-power based.

Somehow, I think that if wind power were more common, the Sierra Club (and groups like it) would find reasons to oppose it.