us First nuclear reactors since 1970s approved in US

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

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

[Astra.Xtreme]

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

[Phouchg]

[fusi0n]

Good news.

[chrisj1968]

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.

[episode]

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.

[+Heartripper Subscriber¹]

"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

[AJerman]

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

Nuclear is cleaner and safer.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

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.

[AJerman]

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.

[deactivated170812]

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.

[+Heartripper Subscriber¹]

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:

[BoredBozirini]

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

[spenser.d]

About time.

[Raa]

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)

[DocM]

Most modern reactor designs are not capable of doing a Cherynobl or Fukushima - they passively safe themselves.

Then there is my favorite: liquid salt thoroum reactors; the fuel is molten naturally, so there is no structure to damage. This plus the benefits of the thorium fuel cycle.

[+Xinok Subscriber²]

Then there is my favorite: liquid salt thoroum reactors; the fuel is molten naturally, so there is no structure to damage. This plus the benefits of the thorium fuel cycle.

I watched a TED video about this. It sounds highly promising.

For those interested - http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel.html

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Most modern reactor designs are not capable of doing a Cherynobl or Fukushima - they passively safe themselves.

Then there is my favorite: liquid salt thoroum reactors; the fuel is molten naturally, so there is no structure to damage. This plus the benefits of the thorium fuel cycle.

If that's the design I'm thinking of, then it's naturally self moderating. As it heats up the fuel expands, extending outside the main reactor core, slowing down the reaction and letting it cool down and contract again.

Awesome design, but at the same time it increases the risk of processing accidents while decreasing the risk of operating accidents (Since the fuel is liquid, it's easy to spill, vs. a solid rod or such)

Edit: The CANDU design is similar in how it handles that situation, the fuel rods are mounted horizontally so if they start overheating and melting, they bend out of shape and slow down the reaction (And the CANDU design can run on just about anything, natural uranium, spent fuel from other reactors, dismantled nuclear warheads, thorium, etc.)