US approves new nuclear power plants...first ones in 35 years

Hopefully they put it somewhere where it's safe... and they have a SAFE design... but really they shouldn't build any new uranium plants. They should built THORIUM plants instead... way safer. But eh, they care only about profits, not safety.

U.S. Approves First New Nuclear Reactors in Decades

Giving a dramatic boost to the nuclear-power industry, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted 4-1 on Thursday to approve the first construction permit for a nuclear reactor in almost 35 years.

The license approval gives Atlanta-based Southern Company the go-ahead to begin construction of two new reactors at its Vogtle plant in Georgia.

The design used...

In April 2010, Arnold Gundersen, a nuclear engineer commissioned by several anti-nuclear groups, released a report which explored a hazard associated with the possible rusting through of the containment structure steel liner. In the AP1000 design, the liner and the concrete are separated, and if the steel rusts through, "there is no backup containment behind it" according to Gundersen.[17] If the dome rusted through the design would expel radioactive contaminants and the plant "could deliver a dose of radiation to the public that is 10 times higher than the N.R.C. limit" according to Gundersen. Vaughn Gilbert, a spokesman for Westinghouse, has disputed Gundersen’s assessment, stating that the AP1000's steel containment vessel is three-and-a-half to five times thicker than the liners used in current designs, and that corrosion would be readily apparent during routine inspection.[17]

Edwin Lyman, a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, has challenged specific cost-saving design choices made for both the AP1000 and ESBWR, another new design. Lyman is concerned about the strength of the steel containment vessel and the concrete shield building around the AP1000. The AP1000 containment vessel does not have sufficient safety margins, says Lyman.[18]

Potentially the most damaging critique of the AP1000 comes from John Ma, a senior structural engineer at the NRC.[18]

In 2009, the NRC made a safety change related to the events of September 11, ruling that all plants be designed to withstand the direct hit from a plane. To meet the new requirement, Westinghouse encased the AP1000 buildings concrete walls in steel plates. Last year Ma, a member of the NRC since it was formed in 1974, filed the first "non-concurrence" dissent of his career after the NRC granted the design approval. In it Ma argues that some parts of the steel skin are so brittle that the "impact energy" from a plane strike or storm driven projectile could shatter the wall. A team of engineering experts hired by Westinghouse disagreed...[18]

But eh, trust the NRC and the company that built the design... I'm sure they ain't biased at all..

And the plant is situated on the north eastern part of Georgia, 85 miles inland. So hopefully no powerful hurricane makes it there.

The so competent NRC...
Must read investigation : US nuke regulators weaken safety rules!

Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Guess you missed the tread right above yours.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dear Vitchilo,

I always admire your work, and I'm glad to see it again, but this subject is driving me nuts. It's vitally important, everybody seems to have a powerful opinion, and I know (and I suspect most other ATSers know) absolutly nothing about the science of reactor design. So we have to rely on experts' opinions.

But here you correctly point out the possibility of bias. Dismissing the NRC and Westinghouse scientists due to their bias may be OK:

But eh, trust the NRC and the company that built the design... I'm sure they ain't biased at all..

But what about the other scientists?

In April 2010, Arnold Gundersen, a nuclear engineer commissioned by several anti-nuclear groups

He was paid by anti-nuclear groups to come up with a report, and the report is anti-nuclear? That should raise some questions.

Your post points out

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted 4-1 on Thursday to approve the first construction permit for a nuclear reactor in almost 35 years

Let's assume that there was a person on the Commission who irrationally hated anything connected to nuclear. During the 35 years that approvals were not granted, would he file a dissent? Of course not. Now for the first time an approval is granted,

Last year Ma, a member of the NRC since it was formed in 1974, filed the first "non-concurrence" dissent of his career after the NRC granted the design approval.

Now I don't know if Ma is an irrational hater of all things nuclear, I don't know enough to tell, but if he was, that's what he'd do. His action is described as

Potentially the most damaging critique of the AP1000 comes from John Ma, a senior structural engineer at the NRC

And, finally,

Edwin Lyman, a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists,

And that's not a group known for cool, unbiased thought on nuclear subjects.

So you see, dear Vitchilo, why I am confused. I don't know the science, and if we throw out all the scientists who are claimed to be biased, there's no one left.

With respect,
Charles1952

There's your "Go Green"

reply to post by charles1952


Yeah. Both are biased. But the NRC have proved again and again that they are not trustworthy...

IMO they should go with thorium reactors, not uranium ones... and they should do a state-wide referendum instead of letting the government do what it wants when it comes to nuclear power.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Already posted -
ATS Thread - New Nuclear plants approved

What else can they do they are handcuffed into the same old technology.