Follow this blog:
RSS

The U.S. nuclear renaissance has begun

By | February 9, 2012, 8:57 PM PST

The existing Vogtle reactors are actively cooled. Southern Co.'s new Westinghouse power plants will feature new technology to passively cool the reactor cores.

The existing Vogtle reactors are actively cooled. Southern Co.'s new reactors would feature new technology to passively cool reactor cores. (Image Credit: Wikipedia Commons)

There are cooling towers on the horizon in the United States. The nuclear renaissance is slated to begin in rural Georgia with new reactors being built over the next five years, and work is already underway to leap another generation ahead.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) today announced that it has granted licenses to a consortium of utilities to erect two Westinghouse AP 1000 reactors at Southern Company’s existing Vogtle site, clearing a path to end a decades long hiatus in new construction.

Westinghouse’s design incorporates passive cooling, which extends the duration under which a reactor can operate safely without outside intervention in the event of a disaster. The AP 1000 is classified as Generation III+ reactor.

Generation III+ reactors have more redundant systems than older reactor designs. Those include emergency cooling systems, a double containment system, and an ashtray like cooling area to capture molten fuel in the event of a meltdown.

Existing U.S. nuclear reactors require active cooling such as electric water pumps. Japan’s Fukushima used active cooling, and its reactors melted down last spring when external power was unavailable. There are a total of 104 nuclear plants in the U.S today that are dependent upon active cooling.

The meltdown risk associated with those legacy reactors and the high capital requirements of nuclear power are some of the reasons why no new reactor has been built in the U.S since the late 1970’s, when the 1979 Three Mile Island incident soured public sentiment.

For now, anti-nuclear sentiment has been marginalized. The U.S. is energy hungry and nuclear power is receiving generous government subsidies. The Vogtle reactors would power up to 1 million homes at a cost of US$14 billion, CNN reported.

A $8.3 billion conditional loan was granted by the Department of Energy to help ease the project’s capital requirements. The Vogtle reactors may be completed as soon as 2015 and 2016 - unless the project is stalled. (A number of environmental groups plan to sue).

Meanwhile, multiple AP 1000s are already operating in China, and the U.S. is playing catch up. The design is the latest reactor to have received the NRC’s approval. However, that alone failed to satisfy NRC chairperson Gregory Jaczko.

Jaczko withheld his support for Southern Company’s license unless the NRC was given binding assurances by Southern Co. that the design would be updated to incorporate lessons the NRC learned post Fukushima. He was the lone vote in opposition.

The NRC has taken action to advance domestic nuclear safety by establishing a Fukushima focused task force. It outlined its goals in two memos (see here and here).

Eventually, future reactors will push the safety bar even further. Those include small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) and a transition away from uranium to a safer thorium fuel cycle. Proponents want SMR designs out for deployment by 2022.

SMRs cluster together compact passively cooled reactors to match the output of obsolete coal or nuclear facilities. Steam output from many modules would power a common generator to produce electricity.

The SMR concept was brought closer toward reality last month when the U.S. Department of Energy outlined how it intends to support the design and licensing of SMRs. The NRC recently certified a Westinghouse SMR design that is based upon the AP 1000.

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

David Worthington

About David Worthington

David Worthington is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

David Worthington

David Worthington

Contributing Editor

David Worthington has written for BetaNews, eWeek, PC World, Technologizer and ZDNet. Formerly, he was a senior editor at SD Times. He holds a degree from Temple University. He is based in New York.

Follow him on Twitter.

David Worthington

David Worthington

David does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers. Occasionally he consults for other companies; should David cover a topic in which a client is involved, he will disclose this fact in his writing. His views do not represent those of ScaleOut Software.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
16
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+4 Votes
+ -
" (A number of environmental groups plan to sue)."
The environmental groups would have us living in the stone age burning trees to keep warm and cook food. Wait-what? Hmmm, can't do that either? I guess we will need to wear skins since we won't have any power and we'll eat our meat raw then... PETA, what?Oh, it's cruel to kill animals with stone knives?

You go hungry and freeze to death! wink
Posted by Cabo Wabo Addict
10th Feb 2012
-2 Votes
+ -
Exagerate much?
n/t
Posted by riverat1
10th Feb 2012
+1 Vote
+ -
Cost effective?
It remains to be seen whether this is cost effective. These reactors will cost around $6.50/watt. Solar PV is already under $4/watt.
Posted by riverat1
10th Feb 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Sure...
You are mixing instantaneous with average power. While nuke 1watt works almost 24/7, PV generate those 1watt only at noon at summer. You need to look at $/kwh for correct comparison.
Posted by Johanespark
11th Feb 2012
+2 Votes
+ -
OK, let's do that
CNN claims that the 2 reactors will cost 14 billion. If you poke around, the cost of those reactors has already gone to 8.7 billion per. So what does that translate into for estimated cents per kwh? 11? 15? And don't forget to include the costs of decomissioning and the cost of transporting the waste to a yet-to-be-developed safe repository for, say 25,000 years?

You're not thinking about a much different potential future scenario where there is a gradually building network of distributed electrical generation/storage grids, where the so-called intermittent renewables are blended together, dramatically improving consistency and reliability, initially backed up by quick-to-kick in natural gas plants, and then down the road by other renewable technologies as they become available.
Posted by klassman6
11th Feb 2012
+1 Vote
+ -
power restriction
I vote to turn off the electricity to those who insist on restricting power development, especially to their air conditioners in August here in Texas.
Posted by rsloan@...
10th Feb 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Solar power
You know, solar power is the perfect source for peaking power due to air conditioning loads. It produces the most power at the same time the AC loads are greatest.
Posted by riverat1
10th Feb 2012
0 Votes
+ -
nuclear power
Sorry, the statement "Now, anti-nuclear sentiment has gone by the wayside." is simply not true. Those of us who lived through Three-Mile Island haven't suddenly stopped opposing nuclear power, and a world that watched the effects of the Japanese tsunami on their reactors isn't suddenly trustful of the nuclear industry. Anti-nuclear sentiment is alive and well and not going to look kindly on new nuclear plants.

I note your edit of the above statement to "For now, anti-nuclear sentiment has been marginalized." This is more accurate, in the absence of an issue when new plants were not being proposed. I would expect this to change if sites are selected and begin development.
Posted by creeverts
Updated - 10th Feb 2012
+2 Votes
+ -
Waste
EVERYTHING designed and developed to safely dispose of waste has failed.

My favorite.. 100's of Billions spent on a mountain in Arizona, then oops it's on a fault line
Posted by vonrock
10th Feb 2012
-2 Votes
+ -
Nse, BSe, Mcx and Ncdex trading tips
If you are trading in NSE, BSE, MCX and in NCDEX then let sharegyan give you all stock trading gyan
Posted by sharegyan001
10th Feb 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Thorium is the future!
Support Thorium and the Thorium Future , whhooorahhhh to clean energy!
Posted by Thorium Trader
11th Feb 2012
0 Votes
+ -
A number of environmental groups plan to sue
There is a reason why a free society where environmental groups can sue projects like this, is better than for example, the Chinese society where they are imposed by government. In a free society, that opposition is crucial to the development of safe and clean energy alternatives, those which need lots of money and effort to investigate, but eventually will make us energy sustainable without killing ourselves or the environment. Nuclear fission is NOT SAFE NOR CLEAN and most not be used. That money should be used for investigation on clean and safe alternatives. Can't we learn from what's happened in the past? Do we need even more destruction to realize?
Posted by David2828
11th Feb 2012
-1 Votes
+ -
A number of environmental groups plan to sue
There is a reason why a free society where environmental groups can sue projects like this, is better than for example, the Chinese society where they are imposed by government. In a free society, that opposition is crucial to the development of safe and clean energy alternatives, those which need lots of money and effort to investigate, but eventually will make us energy sustainable without killing ourselves or the environment. Nuclear fission is NOT SAFE NOR CLEAN and most not be used. That money should be used for investigation on clean and safe alternatives. Can't we learn from what's happened in the past? Do we need even more destruction to realize?
Posted by David2828
11th Feb 2012
-1 Votes
+ -
RE: Can't we learn from what's happened in the past?
Can you learn from France, which gets most of its energy from nuclear fission?
Posted by bb_apptix
14th Feb 2012
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Can you learn from France?
Can you learn from Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Windscale Pile, Chalk River, Idaho Falls, Frenchtown Charter Township, Goiania in Brazil, Castle Bravo, Mayak and Sosnovyi Bor in Russia, Sosnovyi Bor, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Greifswald, Jaslovske Bohunice, Athens in Alabama, Plymouth in Massachusetts, Crystal River in Florida, Waterford in Connecticut, Lusby in Maryland, Hamm-Uentrop in Germany, etc. etc.??
Posted by David2828
16th Feb 2012
+1 Vote
+ -
I don't get it!
I don't get it, other countries are going to wind, solar, water, and we are going to nuclear. I hope they do a better job of building these things. the big question still is where are they going to put the waste???? Did anyone mention the radioactive animals in Hanford?
Posted by halomar1970
15th Feb 2012
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!