Wouldn't have pegged anyone here as a rabid anti-nuke - hope I'm misreading your string of posts on the subject, CD.
yea? how many of those have gone up?
None, IIRC, in large part because the government won't get behind and push as a part of a broad, diverse energy-production policy. If you claim to want cheap, safe, clean power, you NEED nuclear as a major (probably THE major) component of that platform, period-paragraph-end-of-statement. And yes, it feels odd saying that, with my political leanings - but since .gov won't get out of the freakin' way, it ought to do something useful, like help to make sure that national baseload energy requirements can be met by the safest, cheapest form of energy production currently available (take a look at the ACTUAL stats, CD - nuclear, over it's 60+year history, has killed fewer people than *HYDRO* has in that time period, and fewer than coal kills in in a SINGLE YEAR). Govt is not the only problem, certainly - but it's a big part, and it shouldn't be. I'd really like it if we could avoid putting not only noxious carbon products into the air to feed our energy needs, but more radioactive substances into the air than nuclear does as well (and yeah, look that one up too, while you're at it. You might be surprised by what you find). Yeah, I'd rather have fusion plants than fission - but until we GET fusion, we NEED fission.
Yeah, we should be investigating all methods of efficient and effective energy production. Wind might work in some areas, where wind speed is relatively constant - if the Kennedys and others who love their pristine ocean views would permit it, of course. Otherwise, you lose too much energy production to a comparatively-small drop in wind speed. Solar is getting better, but I don't think it's there quite yet as a large-scale power producer (and nobody's talking about putting collecters in space where the atmosphere won't absorb huge amounts of the energy being sent our way by Sol - that whole "death ray from space" part seems to put them off, for some reason... People don't seem to want to carpet entire states in solar panels, either). Hydro's just about maxed out, as I understand it. What's left?
It would help also if the Gen 3+ designs could actually be approved and certified for US use. At this time, it looks as though the AP1000 has certification, as of last December, and Vogtle is looking to put one or more in (they're talking a little less than 5 years to grid connection, as of June, apparently). No other advanced reactor design has apparently been certified by the NRC, though I see that a couple should finish certification sometime next year or in 2014. It takes so very long to get approval to even START construction; add to that the enormous resources which must be in place long before construction starts for end-of-life, and the fact that fedgov has been in contractual default for well over a DECADE on spent-fuel storage, forcing power companies to pick up the slack for them and store it on-site (which is something ELSE the anti-nuke types ignorantly whine about!) at their own cost above and beyond what was already contracted with fedgov for offsite storage, and perhaps you begin to see some of the barriers which have been placed in the way of the nuclear industry.
http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm
Seriously? THOSE are what you're putting forward as "facts"? Ummm, no.
Let's take a look at one in particular which jumped out at me: "Using calculations from 3 Western European governments, the Worldwatch Institute has calculated that the world may experience three more Chernobyl-sized nuclear power accidents before the year 2000."
Where did those happen, again?
The organization attempts to use nuclear power's "low" percentage of US electrical load as a reason why they should be done away with completely - when they and groups like them are large parts of the REASON for that! Talk about disingenuous! I note that France, in particular, seems to be doing okay with ~80% of their energy portfolio coming from nuclear. Most of the so-called "facts" in the linked brochure are nothing of the sort - at best, they are mistaken; most of them seem to be nothing more than their own prejudices causing them to spew outright lies about an industry they hate. Not claiming that nuclear power is purer than the driven snow, by any means - like any other business, there are those who are corrupt and seek to cut corners to save (or skim) money. But if you're going to oppose something, you ought to do so on the FACTS.
they wanna expand near me. it'll be 20 years from start to online assuming they ever make it. and thats to add a unit at existing site
Yeah, they started work on putting a third plant at North Anna well before I left there, in '06. Originally, they were looking at a CANDU design; I've heard they changed their minds about that, but they still are not able to put a Gen-3+ plant there.
Fun fact for you, CD - Lake Anna, built by the Army Corps of Engineers specifically FOR Virginia Power (now Dominion), was originally spec'd for *FOUR* plants the size of the two currently on site. Uprating of the existing plants over the past 30 years has resulted in the equivalent of maybe half an extra plant, so that lake is supplying cooling for ~2.5 of the original 4 plants it was made for. A third of roughly the same rating, or even a fair bit more, will STILL put the lake at less than originally-designed heat load.
And that 20 year clock you mentioned (probably closer to 15) started upwards of 10 years ago, CD, when Dominion started seriously working on site permitting to get that third plant built.
Recommend if you want to continue to post about the imagined evils of nuclear power, you maybe should start another thread for it?
