Largest US public power company launches new nuclear program

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: AP

The largest public power company in the U.S. is launching a program to develop and fund new small modular nuclear reactors as part of its strategy to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The board for the Tennessee Valley Authority on Thursday authorized the program to assess moving forward with new nuclear technology, with up to $200 million to be spent for the first phase. The TVA wants the technology to be available to help power the grid in the 2030s if it proves cost-effective and necessary, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves. The board met at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

The federally owned utility provides electricity to seven states. It has the first U.S. permit for a suitable site for small modular reactors in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at the Clinch River Nuclear Site. By 2050, it hopes to hit its goal of net-zero emissions, which means the amount of greenhouse gases produced is no more than the amount removed from the atmosphere.

“Our objective isn’t to build one nuclear plant,” TVA President and CEO Jeff Lyash said in an interview. “Our objective is to reach net zero carbon, to support economy-wide decarbonization, and to do it at a price and a level of reliability that people can count on. And this is a part of doing that.”

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/largest-us-public-power-company-launches-new-nuclear-program/ar-AATHPph

[Hugh_Lebowski]

1. Love it! (nt)

[TeamProg]

2. No! Wrong direction! This could be the end of us.

[DENVERPOPS]

3. This is truly worrisome........NC

[oldsoftie]

5. Nuclear is the only feasible way to achieve our power needs

And reduce greenhouse gasses
Maybe future inventions will make a difference, but we cannot rely only on wind & solar. Way too many roadblocks

[TeamProg]

6. We COULD rely on wind and solar if the money was invested, but no, the powers that be want to

control the flow of commercial energy for the rest of days.

That's the very reason we aren't at zero emissions right now.

The TVA running a nuke is like handing it over to Homer Simpson.

[oldsoftie]

30. Money is only 1 issue. We simply don't have enough MATERIAL to make as much as needed.

magnetic neodymium, electronic indium, and silver, along with lesser-known metals like praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium are needed, as they're made today, in great quantity. There simply isn't enough of some of those items.
Not to mention, panels are only good for so many years & must be replaced. Wind turbine blades are currently being buried after their life is up. Wind turbines also require large amounts of hard-to-get materials.
Everyone wants solar but nobody thinks about how things are made
Throw into the mix that China controls the market on some of these items and we're setting ourselves up for future failure.

Solar & wind are a part of the solution. But they'll never be THE solution with todays technology.

[Calista241]

41. The areas the TVA serves is not conducive to reliable wind power generation.

They'd also have long periods without power if they relied on solar as well. Nuclear is the only clean option for this area of the country. Luckily they're far from any active faults, and they're well inland.

In addition, 5th generation nuclear plants are significantly safer than plants built in the 50's and 60's. Especially if they adopt something like the Terrapower nuclear design.

[hippywife]

7. Agree.

Besides the danger they pose, there's still the issue of waste disposal.

[former9thward]

20. Other countries seemed to have figured it out.

[hippywife]

21. Really? Have they?

Do tell, what ARE they doing with their waste that will keep it safe from exposure and environmental impact?

[former9thward]

24. This is how France does it.

https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/producing-climate-friendly-energy/nuclear-energy/our-expertise/radioactive-waste

[oldsoftie]

31. Thank you. Newer technologies have made it even better.

Realistically we'll never get where we need to be without nuclear being a big piece of it. But we're dragging our feet

[hippywife]

43. That's still not a solution.

They are basically burying it, which is the same as the one that's always been circulated here. Not good enough.

[cinematicdiversions]

32. Here you go

[LiberalArkie]

10. The waste really isn't such a large amount.

The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled.

[Gore1FL]

18. The problem is the small amount still has to be stored for Billions of years.

Even if we were talking the price of a small safety deposit box at $20 a year, the lease is going to be pretty expensive because of the duration.

[former9thward]

22. No, its $20 a year.

You don't pay for the full length of the lease at once. You really think that in "billions of years" humans would not be able to figure out how to use/dispose of waste? How present-day centric you are.

[Gore1FL]

25. I bet they said the same thing burning coal and oil and wood while clearing woodlands.

By 2022, they'll have this figured out! Instead of "present day" centric, I prefer to think of myself as "let's not accidentally poison the future and hope they can figure it out" centric.

Given the many options available to harness the energy around us, be it geothermal, solar, wind, hydro, and enough environmental efforts to offset the CO2 we still produce, it's best to keep nuclear energy they the future that knows how to use/dispose of the waste. Wishful thinking with poison is not a good idea.

Also, $20 was me being generous. Not even considering the transportation, and security, the cost for the storage requirements alone are going to be orders of magnitude higher than that annually. If we are only doing one year leases, that will probably increase annually, as well.

[former9thward]

26. Other countries, such as France, deal with it just fine.

But I am sure not to your satisfaction.

[Gore1FL]

27. Let's check back in a few 100,000 years. As I have stated may times on this sub thread, and thread

It's the long-term nature of it that is the problem. Suggesting their is no current issue amount to the mere dismissal of the existence of time and the associated long-term costs. Looking only at the short-term expenditures or relying on some future scientific utopia to come along and fix it all are not reasonable ways to be dismissive of the associated cost and dangers.

[oldsoftie]

33. We DID figure it out. We invented nuclear.

[Gore1FL]

39. We haven't quite figured out nuclear, though.

If we did, we wouldn't have to worry about 30 Billion years of storage and the associated costs.

[Polybius]

53. Not billions, but a few hundred thousand years

Still a very long time though.

[cinematicdiversions]

14. Modern Nuclear is by far the safest and most environmentally friendly choice.

You know those no nukes / save the coal jobs marchers in the eighties are why we are in this mess to begin with.

[TeamProg]

28. They said the same thing about "modern nuclear plants" in the '60's.

Of course it's safe, it's the latest technology!

[oldsoftie]

40. And how many died in the US from nuclear power accidents? None.

And the technology today is far better than in the 60s

[dalton99a]

47. Many U.S. Navy vessels are nuclear-powered

Aircraft carriers, submarines, cruisers.

Started in 1954.

[oldsoftie]

60. Excellent point. Totally forgot about them.

[TeamProg]

51. Okay, I'll play. How many people have died from Solar, Geothermic or Wind power?

How many people died at Chernobyl?

[oldsoftie]

56. The same number. And comparing Chernobyl to anything in the US is ridiculous.

The design of Soviet reactors had been criticized for YEARS before the accident.

With current technology, you will NEVER supply the grid with only solar & wind. They should certainly be a part of the Solution. But at this point in time ti will NOT work
Maybe down the road someone will figure out how to harness 10x as much from a solar panel but its not today.
And again, we do not have enough natural resources to make all the panels & turbines needed. And don't forget, THEY all have to be replaced every so many years as well.

[ancianita]

35. Why? Source something. This has been in the works a long time.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/03/bill-gates-warren-buffett-new-nuclear-reactor-wyoming-natrium

... Small advanced reactors, which run on different fuels to traditional reactors, are regarded by some as a critical carbon-free technology than can supplement intermittent power sources like wind and solar as states strive to cut emissions that cause climate change. [See footnote]

“We think Natrium will be a game-changer for the energy industry,” Gates told a media conference to launch the project in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

“This is our fastest and clearest course to becoming carbon negative,” Wyoming’s governor, Mark Gordon, said. “Nuclear power is clearly a part of my all-of-the-above strategy for energy” in Wyoming, the country’s top coal-producing state.

The project features a 345 megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt-based energy storage that could boost the system’s power output to 500MW during peak power demand. TerraPower said last year that the plants would cost about $1bn.

Late last year the US energy department awarded TerraPower $80m in initial funding to demonstrate Natrium technology, and the department has committed additional funding in coming years subject to congressional appropriations.

Some detractors haven't come up with any comparable solutions to zero carbon, and we need to do something. This something is not just some 'better-than-nothing' solution.

[hunter]

38. Fossil fuels will be the end of us if we don't quit them now.

Aggressive renewable energy schemes in places like California, Germany, and Denmark have failed, only prolonging our dependence on the most dangerous fossil fuel there is -- natural gas.

There's enough natural gas in the ground to destroy what's left of the natural world as we know it, and that will take down our civilization as well. The human population, now approaching 8 billion, has become dependent on high density energy sources for its survival.

Nuclear power is the only energy resource capable of displacing fossil fuels entirely.

[oldsoftie]

4. Good! But 20+ years late. It truly is the ONLY way to get where we need to be

Period.

[Evolve Dammit]

8. NOOO. This is insane. There is no way to dispose of the waste. Jessus H people are you serious?

We have had this in our face for 40 years. The NRC has no idea WTF they are going to do with nuclear waste.

[NickB79]

9. Waste worries are the reason we stopped building reactors in the 70's

And instead kept us burning a buttload of coal and gas for the past 50 years.

By worrying about a few thousand tons of nuclear waste, we've released hundreds of billions of tons of carbon waste. Unintended consequences x1000

[Evolve Dammit]

11. Totally disagree. Until there is a way to dispose of the waste, rad waste poses much greater risk

[NickB79]

13. We've entered the 6th mass extinction event due to carbon emissions

We're going to wipe out half the species on this planet due to the carbon waste we ignored, when worrying about nuclear waste.

It's now clear that the waste from a coal-fired plant is more dangerous, less containable, and harder to dispose of than the waste from an equivalent nuclear reactor.

But please, keep talking about risk while we melt the polar ice caps and burn the drought-ravaged forests.

[cinematicdiversions]

16. There seems to be no science behind your claims. NT

[Gore1FL]

19. The half life for Uranium is 4.5 Billion years.

Assuming the sun doesn't Nova and consume the earth and this was along with it, we will have to pay to store and guard it for the current age of the universe to reduce it to 10% potency. The lease would have to continue.

When added to the price of the energy it produces, I submit that's pretty damned expensive energy.

[hunter]

44. The half life of many dangerous fossil fuel wastes is FOREVER.

And these wastes are much more difficult to contain since the volume is so large. Mostly they are not contained.

( Not to mention greenhouse gasses which are destroying what's left of the natural environment as we know it... )

[Gore1FL]

46. Fossile fules are not radioactive and thius do not have a half life.

Carbon can be contained using nature. Uranium requires security and and specifically constructed storage units, which , again, have to last longer than the current age of the universe.

If someone can explain to me how this is remotely economically feasable given our current technology, I'd love to hear it. Until that can be addressed, nuclear energy isn't ready as a wide-spread replacement.

The best source of nuclear energy, and largely the source of all energy on earth is a little over 90, 000,000 miles away. It has been proven to be largely safe. If we go nuclear, let's start with that.

[hunter]

54. I used to be an anti-nuclear activist, and a fairly radical one at that.

I spent a lot of time on the road between Humboldt Bay and San Onofre.

Once upon a time I believed we could establish a "renewable" energy powered society and I even promoted such here on DU.

Alas I could not make the math work, especially for 8 billion human beings who ALL deserve clean water, healthy food, and comfortable shelter.

If some carcinogen kills a person does it matter if it's radioactive or not? Energy wise, fossil fuels pollute this world with an abundance of carcinogens which mostly go uncontained. The remarkable thing about nuclear power is that the volume of these toxins is so small they can be contained. Unlike, say, coal ash or fracking water:



In any case it's a misdirection to say that waste from nuclear power plants must be contained for millions of years when we don't apply the same standard to other industrial wastes, especially fossil fuel wastes. Anyone who drives a car is spewing carcinogens and other toxins everywhere they go, not to mention greenhouse gasses.

After a few hundred years nuclear waste begins to have a hazard profile similar to other hazardous wastes commonly generated in our consumer-industrial society. This includes hazardous wastes generated in the manufacture of solar and wind power equipment.

[Gore1FL]

55. The argument "we do dangerous things with other materials" isn't a strong one.

We need to treat hazmat responsibly. Yes, this includes the pollutants from burning dead plants and animals.

The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.5 billion years. I don't know how that gets reduced.

[oldsoftie]

57. No one ever researches the downside of solar & wind production.

Such as all the waste THEY create when replaced.
And the massive amounts of hard-to-mine materials needed for their production.
Thak you for your post

[Evolve Dammit]

48. experience

[oldsoftie]

58. "experience' isn't science. Reality is.

Currently, there is no way to manufacture enough solar & wind to power the world.
Nuclear would fill the void easily
Thats reality.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25576543/renewable-limits-materials-dutch-ministry-infrastructure/

[Evolve Dammit]

62. Reality is there is no safe way to handle and store long-term. I'm not going to argue this further.

[ancianita]

36. The company CEO says this system actually reduces nuclear waste.

[Evolve Dammit]

49. of course he does. Read Rachel Maddow's Blowout for a comprehensive look into energy history.

[ancianita]

50. I read it. Don't remember her focus on nuclear, just fossil conglomerates and global networks.

[Evolve Dammit]

61. I was referring to the sales pitches by all the execs including the nuclear detonation in CO.

They lie constantly and it's largely speculative

[Calista241]

42. Newer generation nuclear power designs do not produce the quantity of waste

found in reactors developed in the 50's and 60's. Terrapower developed a reactor that uses and consumes the waste produced by the legacy nuclear plants plants.

This is really the only way forward if we want clean energy, and want to have the power capacity to power all these electric cars people are about to start buying.

[roamer65]

12. Imagine if we have a major Carrington event and we can't get power to keep spent fuel pools cool.

That will be the ELE before climate change has a try at it.

[NickB79]

15. We could melt down every reactor on the planet and not see an ELE

If the 2,000 nuclear tests, 2 nuked cities and several reactor meltdowns over 75 years have shown, Nature doesn't really seem phased by it. It's regular human activities that destroy wildlife.

Fukushima, Bikini Atoll and Chernobyl are wildlife havens today. It's only a major issue for humans, due to our long lifespans and corresponding risk of cancers and birth defects.

[roamer65]

17. I think we eventually find out.

The Sun runs on 22 year cycles. We are about 10 years out from maximum.

[HariSeldon]

23. From the way they are describing the reactors get are considering

I think they must be looking at molten salt reactors, possibly LFTR. These types of reactors have an automatic passive shutdown system that would halt the fusion chain reaction almost immediately. The waste is also very low, and the cycle might even be able to speed up disposal of other radioactive waste.

The damage (deaths) caused by coal and even by gas generation plants should not be ignored. The risks of modern nuclear pale compared to continuing to use fossil fuels for electricity generation.

[C Moon]

29. FUCK OFF!!!

This is so 1980s. They were disposed of since then.
Any surprise these freaks are re-appearing at the trump-nazi era?

[oldsoftie]

34. So you think solar tech changed since the 80s but not nuclear technology?

Did you read the article?
Are you aware of the advances in nuclear power since the 80s?
Are you aware that the Chernobyl reactors were deemed unsafe for YEARS before that incident?
Are you aware that at the current time, we don't have anywhere NEAR the amount of minerals needed to make the amount of solar needed?
the list goes on.

But I guess we could just go deeper into coal

[ancianita]

37. I'm with you. They're worth trying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

I'm interested in knowing which type(s) of reactor design(s) shown in the chart will they be using.

[marie999]

45. And this is why nothing significant to end climate change will get done.

If DUers can't get it together how are countries going to?

[oldsoftie]

59. There you have it!

Nobody does the research to see just what's involved to go all solar & wind. It looks & sounds great so LETS GO!!

[Yanicosco]

52. Couldn't the nuke waste be launched into the Sun? n/t

[Sapient Donkey]

63. Would have it to get into space on rockets that occasionally don't want to make it up into space

before exploding. As a kid I used to play a game called Alien Legacy, and in that game you could build a structure called a 'mass driver' to send loads of cargo to other distant planets and space stations using a electromagnetic railgun. Obviously they need to invent that technology. Although, I'm not sure that would go over too well either even if possible. Maybe a giant space elevator will work.

I don't think either of those will be happening any time soon. So, I have another idea! There is a giant hole that seems endless behind one of my uncle's barn in Ohio. They drop everything in there, from kitchen scraps, dead cows and tractors broken down. I haven't heard from my uncle since the night he said he was going to start working on some project. I'm sure if DOE (or whatever) reached out to him then he would let them dump the nuclear waste into that endless pit.