US licenses first nuclear reactors since 1978

[sky otter]

 
i don't think this is such a good idea

US licenses first nuclear reactors since 1978

By Miguel Llanos, msnbc.com
Updated at 1:25 p.m. ET: It's been 34 years -- and several nuclear accidents later -- but a divided federal panel on Thursday licensed a utility to build nuclear reactors in the U.S. for the first time since 1978.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's chairman, Gregory Jaczko, opposed licensing the two reactors at this time even though he had earlier praised their design.


"There is still more work" to be done to ensure that lessons learned from Japan's Fukushima disaster last year are engrained in the reactor design, he told his colleagues. "I cannot support this licensing as if Fukushima never happened. I believe it requires some type of binding commitment that the Fukushima enhancements that are currently projected and currently planned to be made would be made before the operation of the facility."



rest of article here:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10362722-us-licenses-first-nuclear-reactors-since-1978

[Amaterasu]

Oh joy.

What is Their plan?  To ensure that the planet eventually becomes uninhabitable?  I would ask, "Don't We ever learn?" but I know that there is something deeper going on than merely a failure to learn.

Didn't read the whole article yet, but I wonder which active fault They plan to build these two reactors on...

EDIT to add:  Wow.  I think that poll is stacked.  They ask "Right time to license new nuclear reactors?"  My reading showed 83% answered "Yes, the industry has much safer designs to work with and we need nuclear for energy independence and to reduce fossil fuel pollutants."

Really!?!

Only 17% answered "No, the risks from a nuclear accident are still too great to warrant new reactors."

Eighty three percent of Us think reactors are safer?  We need NUCLEAR energy?  Eighty three percent?!?!?!

No way.

[sky otter]

from link

The licensing covers two reactors estimated to cost $14 billion that the Southern Company wants to add to its existing Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia.


>>> http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/vogtle.aspx  <<<

located near Waynesboro in eastern Georgia near the South Carolina border,


and this will surely help you sleep better
Following the Sept. 11 attacks, the NRC also required nuclear operators to show that their reactors' shield buildings could withstand large airplane collisions.

The industry says improved reactor designs have significantly reduced plant sizes and the number of moving parts, thus reducing the risk of a disaster.

[Amaterasu]

Well...  I found They're hydrofracking in Blue Ridge, Georgia, about 300 miles from Waynesboro, Georgia, where the plants are being built...

As fracking is shown to cause earthquakes...  I wonder if 300 miles is good enough.

And...  The plants are in an earthquake hot spot!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/22/us-fault-lines-graphic-ea_n_432948.html

Where's My hole in the head?  I need it like I need these additional hazards!

[The GUT]

The Tennessee Valley Authority has got and given the go ahead to work on a long abandoned nuclear plant around my parts.

Basically on the Madrid faultline. Sheesh.

[The Seeker]

It is all about the $$$, y'all; I live in Georgia, altho on the opposite end of the state from plant vogtle; we do not need these new reactors, which happen to be right down the road(metaphorically) from the Savannah River site...

my major concern with any nuke site ( and I am surrounded by them) is the disposal of the spent fuel rods, and I don't believe one flippin' word about how safe they are,blah,blah,blah; I was very active in the Fukashima thread until it got to the point I was attempting to read 20+ pages of posts nightly just to stay abreast of it...

If they are really concerned with nuclear safety then why do they not switch to the thorium type of reactor???

Beam me up, Scotti, there is very little intelligence being utilized down here...


seeker

[Amaterasu]

Yeah, there's PLENTY of better tech out there.  Maybe it's the money...and maybe it's more sinister.  Remember the Georgia Guidestones...

http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm

[Littleenki]

Hopefully, the reactors arent how they are going to thin us out!

[Amaterasu]

Hopefully, the reactors arent how they are going to thin us out!

I can't think of any other reason They would build so many reactors in quake zones (San Andreas just scares the pee out of Me!).  In fact, I can't figure out why They are building reactors like these at all - unless it's for that very purpose.

Any other reason You can come up with would set MY mind at ease.

[sky otter]

well the next step has been cleared



http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nrc-approves-construction-of-new-nuclear-power-reactors-in-georgia/2012/02/09/gIQA36wv1Q_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop

NRC approves construction of new nuclear power reactors in Georgia

The commission voted 4-1 in favor, with NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko casting the sole vote against granting the license. Jaczko said later that he wanted binding assurances that the new reactors would be modified to meet recommendations made by the agency's task force on the disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant last year
................................................

The new reactors, however, are no longer seen as the start of what the industry once predicted would be a nuclear renaissance. Virtually all of the 31 plants that had been proposed by 2009 have been shelved as a result of cheap natural gas, high construction costs, weak electricity demand and safety concerns following the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan.

Ten anti-nuclear groups have vowed to file suit against the NRC if it approves the license as expected. The groups said they would argue that the agency broke the law by failing to consider the full lessons of the Fukushima disaster, in which a string of four reactors were badly damaged in an earthquake and tsunami.

...............................
Moreover, in Georgia, utilities can pass along costs to ratepayers while construction is still in progress. In most states, utilities can only start charging ratepayers for a power plant once the plant is operating. Georgia ratepayers paid $233 million in 2011 and this year will pay $258 million to cover part of Southern's costs. Additional amounts will be passed along in later years, averaging $8.74 a month for a typical customer, according to Southern spokesman Mark Williams.






.................

ok.. i am in western  Pa. and the marcellus  wells are everywhere ..yesterday was talking to a guy who has 14 on his property...gas prices are so low right now they are closing all but 2 of those and no plans for drilling any more right now..the shallow wells are also at a stand still and being temporarily shut down

i don't think the reason is killing so much as bondage...financial first then other..just my opinion

[Amaterasu]

i don't think the reason is killing so much as bondage...financial first then other..just my opinion

Well...  How will We keep Our numbers below 500 million when We're already over 7 billion...?  I think death is very much planned for virtually all of Us.

Just sayin'.

[sky otter]

maybe with accidents..yikes to this

Report: Russia Nuclear Disaster Narrowly Averted In Submarine Fire
By Guy Faulconbridge


MOSCOW, Feb 14 (Reuters) - Russia came close to nuclear disaster in late December when a blaze engulfed a nuclear-powered submarine carrying atomic weapons, a leading Russian magazine reported, contradicting official assurances that it was not armed.

Russian officials said at the time that all nuclear weapons aboard the Yekaterinburg nuclear submarine had been unloaded well before a fire engulfed the 167-metre (550 feet) vessel and there had been no risk of a radiation leak.

But the respected Vlast weekly magazine quoted several sources in the Russian navy as saying that throughout the fire on Dec. 29 the submarine was carrying 16 R-29 intercontinental ballistic missiles, each armed with four nuclear warheads.

"Russia, for a day, was on the brink of the biggest catastrophe since the time of Chernobyl," Vlast reported. The 1986 disaster in modern-day Ukraine is regarded as the world's worst nuclear accident.

.........................

The fire started when welding sparks ignited wooden scaffolding around the 18,200-tonne submarine at the Roslyakovo docks, 1,500 km (900 miles) north of Moscow and one of the main shipyards used by Russia's northern fleet.


The rubber covering of the submarine then caught fire, sending flames and black smoke 10 metres (30 feet) above the stricken vessel. Firemen battled the blaze for a day and a night before partially sinking the submarine to douse the flames, according to media reports.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/russia-nuclear-disaster-submarine-fire_n_1276660.html


who needs a war when just an accident could start one..

[Amaterasu]

Eek.  Not good.  Still...I think HAARP and earthquakes could blow up the reactors (while the elite are cuddly underground) nailing most of Us all at once.

[sigh]  Let's hope there's enough of Us with more sanity in power.