NRC approves construction of new nuclear power reactors in Georgia

• tk421

  

  It's about fucking time. I don't see how we're supposed to get off oil without nuclear. Of course, the crazies are already planning to sue to stop the building. Fucking stupid short sighted idiots. Probably the NIMBYs as well. I would have no problem living right next to a nuclear plant, hell give me a job as well.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nrc-approves-construction-of-new-nuclear-power-reactors-in-georgia/2012/02/09/gIQA36wv1Q_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop
  
  If this is too "political" then you can move it, I just didn't want to wait the week for the thread to get approved.
• sleeper

  

  tk421;1081668 wrote:It's about fucking time. I don't see how we're supposed to get off oil without nuclear. Of course, the crazies are already planning to sue to stop the building. Fucking stupid short sighted idiots. Probably the NIMBYs as well. I would have no problem living right next to a nuclear plant, hell give me a job as well.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nrc-approves-construction-of-new-nuclear-power-reactors-in-georgia/2012/02/09/gIQA36wv1Q_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop
  
  If this is too "political" then you can move it, I just didn't want to wait the week for the thread to get approved.

  +1
• I Wear Pants

  Couldn't agree more. The Japan thing convinced me entirely. A decades old reactor without several generations of improvements was able to not kill everyone and everything after it was hit with one of the largest earthquakes we've ever seen, then massively flooded which killed the generators powering it's back up cooling systems, then there were large explosions on the site and still we didn't have anything catastrophic. I'll endorse the shit out of this.
• Pick6

  

  i was under the impression there are already nuclear reactors built in the U.S. right or wrong?
• I Wear Pants

  Pick6;1081809 wrote:i was under the impression there are already nuclear reactors built in the U.S. right or wrong?

  There hasn't been a new one built since like 3242389 BC.
• brutus161

  

  As someone that usually makes his living on a nuclear powered submarine, I fully support nuclear energy. It is safe, and once the initial cost of building it is over, relatively cheap to continue to operate.
• Devils Advocate

  

  tk421;1081668 wrote:It's about ****ing time. I don't see how we're supposed to get off oil without nuclear. Of course, the crazies are already planning to sue to stop the building. ****ing stupid short sighted idiots. Probably the NIMBYs as well. I would have no problem living right next to a nuclear plant, hell give me a job as well.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nrc-approves-construction-of-new-nuclear-power-reactors-in-georgia/2012/02/09/gIQA36wv1Q_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop
  
  If this is too "political" then you can move it, I just didn't want to wait the week for the thread to get approved.

  You should move right next to it in Georgia, and help support the cause!
• jmog

  Pick6;1081809 wrote:i was under the impression there are already nuclear reactors built in the U.S. right or wrong?

  There hasn't been a new one built since the 70s. That is the problem. The same thing with oil refineries, the left wing crazies block building of new facilities like this in fear of hurting an ant colony somewhere.
  
  Similarly the last oil refinery in the US was build in 1993.
  
  Nuclear Power Plants create GREAT jobs. I almost took a job once as an engineer at a Nuclear plant, they typically pay easily 30% higher than a similar job elsewhere. I would have had to move out of state in the end and I wasn't up for that.
• sjmvsfscs08

  Yeah my best friend's dad and my ex-girlfriend's dad worked in the same department at Davis-Besse and made $80,000 ten years ago (I have no idea what they make now, I would assume it's higher). And another best friend's dad was their boss and made like $150-200k. GREAT JOBS for any region.
  
  Not to mention, Oak Harbor HS has benefitted significantly from Davis-Besse.
  
  With all of the natural gas that we're going to be pumping out of the ground in Ohio, it's tough for me to say that nuclear power is the way to go right now though. I'm not sure it'll be cost-effective at this point in time. Maybe I'm wrong though.
  
  Why can't we just build 2-3 reactors on the site of Davis-Besse or elsewhere?
• QuakerOats

  Nuclear can and should be an important part of overall energy supply. China, among others, is moving ahead with nuclear at a rapid pace. {Tip -- keep an eye on Strateco Resources, Canadian uraniuam exploration company -- RSC.TO}.
• sleeper

  

  brutus161;1081874 wrote:As someone that usually makes his living on a nuclear powered submarine, I fully support nuclear energy. It is safe, and once the initial cost of building it is over, relatively cheap to continue to operate.

  +1
  
  I'm all for Nuclear Power.
• thavoice

  I am totally against it.
  
  If we learned anything from The Simpsons, it is that nuclear power can be nasty stuff.
  
  
  I do support monorails though in each city for mass transit.
  
  mono= 1
  rail = rail.
• queencitybuckeye

  Devils Advocate;1081876 wrote:You should move right next to it in Georgia, and help support the cause!

  How would that help?
• ohiotiger33

  

  thavoice;1082025 wrote:I am totally against it.
  
  If we learned anything from The Simpsons, it is that nuclear power can be nasty stuff.
  
  
  I do support monorails though in each city for mass transit.
  
  mono= 1
  rail = rail.

  REPS
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Agreed, good move.
  However, we have to figure out what to do with the waste.
  It is just sitting there at nuke facilities in pools and in casts. If an earthquake happens, then radiation may get released.
  
  We need an unground area to store it all. Otherwise, we are screwing ourselves.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  brutus161;1081874 wrote:As someone that usually makes his living on a nuclear powered submarine, I fully support nuclear energy. It is safe, and once the initial cost of building it is over, relatively cheap to continue to operate.

  Thanks for the service. The Navy is pretty good at the whole nuke power thing. Then again, those reactors are completely different than commercial, and use High Enriched Uranium, rather than Low Enriched for commercial.
  

  sjmvsfscs08;1081916 wrote:Yeah my best friend's dad and my ex-girlfriend's dad worked in the same department at Davis-Besse and made $80,000 ten years ago (I have no idea what they make now, I would assume it's higher). And another best friend's dad was their boss and made like $150-200k. GREAT JOBS for any region.
  
  Not to mention, Oak Harbor HS has benefitted significantly from Davis-Besse.
  
  With all of the natural gas that we're going to be pumping out of the ground in Ohio, it's tough for me to say that nuclear power is the way to go right now though. I'm not sure it'll be cost-effective at this point in time. Maybe I'm wrong though.
  
  Why can't we just build 2-3 reactors on the site of Davis-Besse or elsewhere?

  Why? $$$$ and time. It takes a ton of money, millions and millions to build a reactor, and it takes years to make them. So, the profit isn't seen for years.
  Plus, no one wants to build reactors by reactors, as it puts too many eggs in one basket if something crazy, like an earthquake occurs.
  

  QuakerOats;1082008 wrote:Nuclear can and should be an important part of overall energy supply. China, among others, is moving ahead with nuclear at a rapid pace. {Tip -- keep an eye on Strateco Resources, Canadian uraniuam exploration company -- RSC.TO}.

  The international uranium market is at an all time high right now. The Canucks really don't sell to the Chinese, The Chinese go to Russia or Ukraine, or Mongolia.
• Tiernan

  ^^^
  Thank-you Mr. Wizard way to kill the feel good about Nukes buzz we had going Debbie Downer.
• HitsRus

  

  The two new reactors being built will create about 4,000 construction jobs plus 800 permanent jobs
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1081891 wrote:There hasn't been a new one built since the 70s. That is the problem. The same thing with oil refineries, the left wing crazies block building of new facilities like this in fear of hurting an ant colony somewhere.
  
  Similarly the last oil refinery in the US was build in 1993.
  
  Nuclear Power Plants create GREAT jobs. I almost took a job once as an engineer at a Nuclear plant, they typically pay easily 30% higher than a similar job elsewhere. I would have had to move out of state in the end and I wasn't up for that.

  The refineries thing isn't the same. There aren't new refineries because the oil companies have found it to be uneconomical to build new ones. The added production capacity they would give wouldn't be able to be used because of the whole peak oil thing. If I remember where I read the article explaining that a bit better I'll link it.
  
  TL;DR: It's too expensive for oil companies to build new refineries that will never or only for a short time be fully needed, the cost/benefit analysis doesn't work out.
• j_crazy

  

  I Wear Pants;1082765 wrote:The refineries thing isn't the same. There aren't new refineries because the oil companies have found it to be uneconomical to build new ones. The added production capacity they would give wouldn't be able to be used because of the whole peak oil thing. If I remember where I read the article explaining that a bit better I'll link it.
  
  TL;DR: It's too expensive for oil companies to build new refineries that will never or only for a short time be fully needed, the cost/benefit analysis doesn't work out.

  
  2 new refineries have been applied for since 2005. None approved.