February 9, 2012
| 
5
Vogtle Unit 3 containment vessel bottom head being assembled. Credit- Souther Company
In a historic vote earlier today, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Southern Company’s application to construct the nation’s first nuclear reactors in over 30 years.
The license was granted in a 4-1 vote, and permits two new reactors to be built at Georgia Power’s Plant Vogtle (about 170 miles east of Atlanta). Plant Vogtle already has two other reactors of an older design.
“This is a momentous occasion for the citizens of the Southeast and for the advancement of our national energy policy,” said Southern Company CEO Thomas Fanning in a small conference room at the company’s headquarters in Atlanta. Fanning added that the project will set the standard for safety and efficiency.
Not only does the NRC vote serve as one of the first green lights for the nuclear industry in a long while, it also introduces a new reactor design to the U.S. market (four AP1000 reactors are under construction in China). Westinghouse’s AP1000 pressurized water reactor utilizes a modular design and passive safety features, such as gravity, to cool its core in the case of a meltdown. The NRC approved this new reactor design in December 2011.
However, not everyone believes the new licenses fully embrace the tragic lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown – the most notable person being NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, who voted against license approval this morning. Also, nine anti-nuclear groups have said they will challenge the decision in court in the name of environmental and human safety.
Even so, Southern Co. foresees construction continuing as planned, said Fanning. Limited construction for Units 3 and 4 started a number of years ago, and the now approved “combined operating license” allows for their completion, which includes building the containment and reactor cooling systems.
According to Georgia Power Company President Paul Bowers, the $14 billion project will generate approximately 5,000 jobs in Ga., and 25,000 more globally. And if construction goes according to plan, Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 will become operational in 2016 and 2017.
Despite the positive and proud nature of the announcement by Southern Company today, certain questions about a nuclear renaissance can only be answered with time. The first is whether the safety issues that plagued the Fukushima Daiichi plant will continue to haunt the industry. The second is whether the new reactors can be built on time and at cost?
More to explore:
Article: Nuclear Reactor Approved in U.S. for First Time Since 1978
About the Author: Robynne Boyd began writing about people and the planet when living barefoot and by campfire on the North Shore of Kauai, Hawaii. Over a decade later and now fully dependent on electricity, she continues this work as an editor for IISD Reporting Services. When not in search of misplaced commas and terser prose, Robynne writes about environment and energy. She lives in Atlanta, Georgia.
5 CommentsAdd a Comment
You must log in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
What Thomas Kuhn Really Thought about Scientific "Truth"
Crowdfunding for Research Dollars: A Cure for Science's Ills?
3 Science Questions to Ask U.S. Presidential Candidates
Aerial views of the Alberta tar sands show the beauty and mess of the whole process
Belieber or Thiever: Who came first, Bieber or this scientist?It’s not about tar sands – it’s about us
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
Share
Email
Print
It will be interesting to do side-by-side comparison of this project with the many large CSP and photovoltaic power plants coming on-line, to see which is cheaper, less financially risky, and provides more usable power. At 2011 photovoltaic prices of $1/Watt (dropping by >10%/year recently), $14B would by 14 Gigawatts of power generation gear (each AP1000 is only 1 GW, so at first sight, it seems that nuclear is 3.5x more expensive than PV). With PV, the company could start generating power in months instead of years (no need to raise customer prices even before the plants are built and ask for $8B federal loan guarantees, as with nuclear), and capacity could be added incrementally as demand increases. Also, by 2014/2016, PV costs will be lower than in 2011 (they could be a *lot* lower, with a $14B investment in production capacity). Financially risky, this nuclear.
Link to thisBy the time that nuclear plant is producing power, if it ever does, the price will be closer to $50 billion of the tax payers money. The $14 billion is what it is going to cost to provide the fossil fuel for it each year and people’s electric bills are going to skyrocket. It will need at least $2 billion a year in federal incentives just to keep its doors open like the oil, coal, and natural gas is already getting.
Why would that plant produce 25,000 jobs world wide? Why isn’t that plant producing those 25,000 jobs for America; don’t we need jobs?
Nuclear is a very bad idea that always produce very bad results.
Link to this“The $14 billion is what it is going to cost to provide the fossil fuel for it each year….” I am already able to tell that you have no clue as to what you are talking about. Additionally, while PV is also definitely a path to be followed, there is no way in h*** that PV can provide the necessary power on the scale of industrial requirements.
Link to thisUnfortunately the reason it will create jobs elsewhere is that America can no longer build large equipment and we sold most of out nuclear companies to foreign companies. 14 GW of PV would take a lot of space
Link to thisThe real game changer in nuclear power is the Low Energy Nuclear Reactor (LENR).
Link to thisLENR is being actively studied by the likes of NASA, MIT, SPAWAR (Navy research lab), DIA and dozens of big science labs world wide including CERN. Hard to believe that all these big science and government organizations are in on a hoax. They all denied ‘cold fusion’ for the last 20 years because no theory could explain the excess heat experimenters were getting starting in 1989 with Pons & Fleischmann.
Despite the no theory problem, you can order an Ecat , ~$600 upon delivery, 10kW heat output the size of a dehumidifier or box of paper. At Ecat.com. Factory being built now to produce 1,000,000 units/yr. Next year at HD. Direct replacement for your average home heating boiler. $40 for fuel with 6 months running time and easy homeowner replaceable cartridge. See: HTTP://EnergyIndependence-Rob.blogspot.com for more.