Posted on 08/08/2023 10:20:58 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The U.S. brings a new Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor online in Georgia, the first in 7 years, signaling a potential nuclear renaissance.
Historical fears and incidents hindered nuclear development, but changing perceptions and energy needs have positioned nuclear as a clean energy solution.
While challenges like high costs and lengthy development times persist, political support, funding, and improving public opinion could drive a resurgence in U.S. nuclear energy.
Following the energy shortages of 2022, the U.S. has been racing to reinvigorate its nuclear energy sector. Long neglected, nuclear power appears to be making a comeback in the U.S., having gained funding and political support from the Biden administration, and being seen as an obvious option to help accelerate a green transition. In recent years, the U.S. has been trying to simply keep its existing nuclear reactors ticking over but, for the first time in 7 years, a new reactor is up and running, spurring greater optimism for the future of U.S. nuclear energy.
In July, Georgia Power brought a new Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor online, sending power to the U.S. grid. The Unit 3 reactor at Plant Vogtle in Georgia began operations last month following successful preliminary testing in March. The reactor generates around 1,110 MW of energy, enough to power roughly 500,000 homes and businesses. This is the first new reactor to come into operation since 2016 when the Watts Bar Unit 2 came online in Tennessee under the Tennessee Valley Authority.
(Excerpt) Read more at oilprice.com ...
I always shake my head in wonderment when I see nuke power referred to as ‘clean energy’. Aside from Fukushima and Chernobyl, which still provide radiation to the environment today, US nuke plants are licensed to ‘burp’ radioactive gas in controlled amounts into the environment. There used to be a ‘scandalous map’ showing rosettes of cancer around nuke plants when plotted on a map of the US, as regions immediately surrounding the plants were said to experience higher rates of cancer. But it’s clean cancer, you see?
Now By Cracky! This is a Green Energy project I approve of.
Now we need Musk to bring out an nuclear powered electric car. The battery problem would then be solved. Solved with a Sweet Pea sized pill.
Building these types of nuclear reactors today is the same as building launch platforms based on the Space Shuttle technology rather than on SpaceX technology.
We should be the world leaders in Thorium reactors, scalable pebble bed reactors, and so on.
Ping
There are only about 240 coal fired plants in the US now.
In my recollection that is a dramatic change already.
Of course, that's assuming the Dims don't block mining it like Brandon did today with blocking uranium mining in Arizona.
Blocked and quietly sold for the big guy’s 10 percent.
Yeah and you forgot about the spent fuel sitting in the cooling ponds and elsewhere. 100,000 years of instant death. How clean is that?
Clean EV’s, Clean Nuke plants... It is all propaganda for the gullible.
But the containment weighs 5 tons,
You’re full of crap. Nuclear reactors emit less radiation than coal plants, and there is ample data that low levels of radiation are actually beneficial.
Anti nuke sentiment is actually the result of KGB funded propaganda and organizations during the cold war. People like you are still helping an enemy craft this nation’s energy policy thirty years after that enemy no longer exists.
Ironically, when you take an actual unbiased look at real causes of death instead of imaginary emanations with no more foundation in reality than “climate change”, nuclear power is the safest form of electrical generation.
A reactor weighs around 400 tons.
Negative on releases.
None of the water from the TMI clean up was released into the river.
The real cause of the nuclear power industry getting shut down was not TMI, but the movie “The China Syndrome” which was released a week or so earlier.
I would rather see nuclear energy, so the US could sever ties with foreign energy suppliers.
I would also look to the actual resurgence of steam powered coal fired locomotives, in response to the present diesel-electric locomotives.
Really be interesting to know what criteria they employ when hiring people to run and maintain that beast.
Do they go with the most qualified, experienced, best educated and trained or is there some sort of quota that mandates that there must be a certain percentage of some sex or race?
| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Another New Nuclear Reactor Energizes U.S. Clean Energy Hopes, hopespringseternal wrote: |
You’re full of crap. Nuclear reactors emit less radiation than coal plants, and there is ample data that low levels of radiation are actually beneficial. Welp, Chernobyl and Fukushima are still emitting radiation into the air and water and will do so for hundreds of thousands of years so I don't believe your coal plants comparison is relevant here. The 'ample data' of low levels of radiation being beneficial is a sickening lie that I have seen before - like we should thank the nuke plants for thoughtfully contaminating our food, soil, air, water etc. "You're welcome." Anti nuke sentiment is actually the result of KGB funded propaganda and organizations during the cold war. Because no decent person objects to radioactive waste in their drinking water..... People like you are still helping an enemy craft this nation’s energy policy thirty years after that enemy no longer exists. People like you are using 30 year old talking points to try to shout down the reasonable observation that nuclear power is not 'clean energy' - that phrase is denialist marketing, "Forget what you know about failures in the nuclear power industry - it's clean I tell you, clean!" Ironically, when you take an actual unbiased look at real causes of death instead of imaginary emanations with no more foundation in reality than “climate change”, nuclear power is the safest form of electrical generation. No, but sociopathic nuclear power industrialists are 'above the law' so onward we go, into our contaminated future. |
| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Another New Nuclear Reactor Energizes U.S. Clean Energy Hopes, meatloaf wrote: |
Negative on releases. None of the water from the TMI clean up was released into the river. |
I didn't mention anything about clean up efforts at TMI or water releases. It's a fact that functioning nuclear power plants in America are permitted by law to routinely 'burp' a specified amount of contaminated air into the environment - part of a maintenance feature.
Where is the little commie darling anyway? Shouldn't she be out in front protesting her own country of Sweden for going nuke?
I find it amazing that a number of countries or going back to nuke energy. Hmmm, I wonder why that is. Could it be the amazing reliability of solar and wind? /s.
Two videos for “dummies” for consideration:
Nuke energy...abundant, clean, and safe:
https://youtu.be/X5OJRxZoMI8
How dangerous is nuke waste?:
https://youtu.be/Mw-S9UgrfNY
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.