Scheduled PSN downtime tomorrow in Back Page News


17 replies to this topic - - - - -

#1 +Mephistopheles

    Member N° 1,302

  • 17,484 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 01
  • Location: Frankfurt, DE
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 800

Posted 09 February 2012 - 21:03

First nuclear reactors since 1970s approved in US

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the first nuclear reactors to be built in the country since 1978.


The commission voted 4-1 in favour of Southern Co building two nuclear reactors at an existing Georgia plant.

But Chairman Gregory Jaczko voted against, expressing concern that the licence was being approved "as if Fukushima never happened".

The reactors are expected to cost $14bn (£8.8bn) and could begin operating as early as 2016 or 2017.

No reactors have been approved for construction since a year before the accident at Three Mile Island, a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, in 1979.

'Binding commitment'


Safety concerns around nuclear power have risen following a meltdown at Japan's Fukushima power plant in March 2011 after an earthquake and tsunami damaged safety features.

In the wake of the Japanese disaster the commission launched a review into whether existing and new US reactors could withstand natural disasters like earthquakes and floods.

Mr Jaczko said he believes approving the reactors "requires some type of binding commitment" that safety enhancements planned from the review would be in place before the reactors opened.

Southern's project is considered a test of whether the industry can avoid costly delays that plagued previous reactors.

The Obama administration has offered Southern and its partners $8.3bn in federal loan guarantees, helping lowering financing costs.

The reactor design, approved separately in December, will also be used by utility companies in Florida and South Carolina currently in the approval process.


Source: BBC News


#2 Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • 3,433 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 09 February 2012 - 21:07

Glad this went through. Big news for the US and hopefully the rest of the world will follow.

#3 +Phouchg

    Internets Loser

  • 2,355 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 11
  • Location: Past Imperfect
  • OS: WretchedOS 6.1.7601 x64

Posted 09 February 2012 - 21:13

Posted Image

#4 Fus10n

    Intel i7-950

  • 1,099 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 04
  • Location: USA

Posted 09 February 2012 - 21:13

Good news.

#5 ChrisJ1968

    Resident Elite

  • 1,356 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 08
  • Location: Here

Posted 09 February 2012 - 21:19

Man, I don't know what's safer? clean coal which obama swore to shutdown or nuke power? if this lessens the cost for electricity,I will lean toward good.

#6 +episode

    Neowinian Fanatic

  • 5,315 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 01

Posted 09 February 2012 - 21:28

View PostChrisJ1968, on 09 February 2012 - 21:19, said:

Man, I don't know what's safer? clean coal which obama swore to shutdown or nuke power? if this lessens the cost for electricity,I will lean toward good.

Safer? Coal, if you exclude the miners. Cheaper? By far, nuclear. Better, overall? Nuclear.

#7 Heartripper

    Excellent

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: 10-December 09
  • Location: Italy
  • OS: Windows 7 / Ubuntu 12.04
  • Phone: Nokia N97

Posted 09 February 2012 - 21:32

Quote

"as if Fukushima never happened"

Saying this is as dumb as saying that it's a shame that airplanes are still being produced after 9/11

#8 AJerman

    Boomer Sooner!

  • 3,906 posts
  • Joined: 24-July 02
  • Location: Wake Forest, NC

Posted 09 February 2012 - 21:40

View Postepisode, on 09 February 2012 - 21:28, said:

Safer? Coal, if you exclude the miners. Cheaper? By far, nuclear. Better, overall? Nuclear.
Nuclear is cleaner and safer.

#9 The_Decryptor

    (づ。◕‿‿◕。)づ

  • 17,676 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: WinLin X 10.7 Ill-tempered Badger

Posted 09 February 2012 - 21:40

View Postepisode, on 09 February 2012 - 21:28, said:

Safer? Coal, if you exclude the miners. Cheaper? By far, nuclear. Better, overall? Nuclear.

I wouldn't call coal safe, those plants can put out a fair bit of radioactive material.

#10 AJerman

    Boomer Sooner!

  • 3,906 posts
  • Joined: 24-July 02
  • Location: Wake Forest, NC

Posted 09 February 2012 - 21:43

View PostThe_Decryptor, on 09 February 2012 - 21:40, said:

I wouldn't call coal safe, those plants can put out a fair bit of radioactive material.
On top of the massive amount of any other kind of pollution that's guaranteed with burning fossil fuels. Nuclear only poses a safety risk in the case of a leak or other disaster which is actually pretty rare, just big news when it does happen. Fossil fuels on the other hand pollute and cause air quality issues all day every day.

#11 juresp

    Neowinian³

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: 13-September 10

Posted 09 February 2012 - 21:45

At least someone in the US has some sense.
Meanwhile in the EU, "Green people" are more and more successful at shutting down existing nuclear power plants. In a few years time we will probably be burning wood again to heat ourselves and use candles for lighting.

#12 Heartripper

    Excellent

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: 10-December 09
  • Location: Italy
  • OS: Windows 7 / Ubuntu 12.04
  • Phone: Nokia N97

Posted 09 February 2012 - 22:06

View Postjuresp, on 09 February 2012 - 21:45, said:

At least someone in the US has some sense.
Meanwhile in the EU, "Green people" are more and more successful at shutting down existing nuclear power plants. In a few years time we will probably be burning wood again to heat ourselves and use candles for lighting.

More likely in a few years we'll be buying energy from countries that produce it with nuclear plants.

This is already happening in Italy where nuclear energy has been banned in the 80's after chernobyl disaster. Nowadays we buy energy from France. Energy produced in nuclear plants located near italian borders. :rolleyes:

#13 sexypepperoni

    Pepe to the Rescue!

  • 3,210 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09
  • Location: Sexy Pepe's Winter House

Posted 10 February 2012 - 01:42

Everyone should follow France's lead. Build a ton of nuclear plants, enjoy the benefits.

#14 spenser.d

    Neowinian DOMINATING

  • 8,695 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 03
  • Location: Madison, WI

Posted 10 February 2012 - 01:49

About time.

#15 Raa

    Resident English Nazi

  • 8,717 posts
  • Joined: 03-April 02
  • Location: NSW, Australia

Posted 10 February 2012 - 02:00

If a Coal plant explodes, then the surround area is usable again within a relatively short time compared to using Nuclear.

I'm not against Nuclear, but i'm just point that fact out. Modern nuclear designs are far safer than they used to be. (Y)