Georgia nuclear plant gets OK to load fuel at new reactor

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By JEFF AMY

ATLANTA (AP) — A nuclear power plant being built in Georgia can begin loading radioactive fuel into one of its two new reactors, federal regulators said Wednesday, a key step toward generating electricity at the first new nuclear reactor built in decades in the United States.

The Southern Nuclear Operating Co. hopes in October to begin loading fuel into its third reactor at Plant Vogtle, near Waynesboro, Tom Fanning, CEO of Southern Nuclear’s parent company, Atlanta-based Southern Co, said last week.

Andrea Veil, director of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, said inspectors “independently verified that Vogtle Unit 3 has been properly built and will protect public health and safety when it transitions to operation.” She said they will keep “a close eye” on the unit moving forward.

A third and a fourth reactor were approved for construction at Vogtle by the Georgia Public Service Commission in 2012, and the third reactor was supposed to start generating power in 2016. Now, the schedule calls for that to happen by the end of March 2023. The cost of the third and fourth reactors has climbed from an original cost of $14 billion to more than $30 billion.



FILE - The cooling towers of two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Ga., are pictured Friday, March 22, 2019. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2022, that it had approved plans to load radioactive fuel into one of the new reactors, which could clear the way for the first new nuclear power plant built in the United States in decades to come online by March 2023. (Michael Holahan/The Augusta Chronicle via AP, File)


Read more: https://apnews.com/article/united-states-georgia-atlanta-nuclear-power-d0f8821b3f86643818adfa8e98bc5c4d

[womanofthehills]

2. Anti nuclear - Look what's happening here

Europes largest nuclear plant completely out of control

A huge nuclear power plant occupied by Russia during its invasion of Ukraine is "completely out of control", The head of the UN's nuclear agency says.
Rafael Grossi was quoted by the Associated Press news agency as saying the Zaporizhzhia plant needed an inspection and repairs.
"You have a catalogue of things that should never be happening in any nuclear facility," he said.
Europe's biggest nuclear plant is dangerously close to the fighting.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62412429

[MarineCombatEngineer]

3. What does a Russian occupied Ukr. nuke power plant have to do with

a US nuke power plant?

Is this new power plant occupied by foreign forces?
Is this new power plant out of control?

[Lasher]

4. The nuclear power plant in Ukraine was not occupied by foreign forces when it was built.

And it was not out of control until now. We're not certain what the future holds for us.

[womanofthehills]

7. If for any horrible reason our grid goes down

for a length of time - how to we keep all the spent rods cool?

[AllTooEasy]

11. Arizona's Palo Verde Generating Station is not dependant on the grid for power

Actually, it's the other way around. This nuclear plant supplies its own energy to run its cooling system, and energy for homes within the Phx metro area. I would suspect that all nuclear plants supply their own energy since industrial nuclear reactors create A LOT of energy.

A meltdown could only occur if the cooling system itself fails (i.e. mechanical failure, broken electrical circuit to the cooling system, etc.)

[manicdem]

12. New reactors are safer

Modern reactors are considerably safer than those built 50 years ago. Not sure if this one got it, but the new ones use power to keep the control rods out, so in the event of powerloss, the control rods automatically get inserted.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

14. Backup diesel generators to keep critifcal equipment operating,

just about every Federal, State structure have back up generators for just such an occassion.

[FBaggins]

16. And even those aren't needed

The AP1000 (the reactor model in this scenario) includes a very large tank of water above the reactor that it sufficient to cool the unit for at least three days without power (or operator actions) at all. Though backup generators exist... their loss (unlike at Fukushima) would not cause a major event. After three days, the reactor has achieved "safe shutdown" (where decay heat is less than half of one percent of that produced during operation.)

Essentially - it doesn't rely on backup power for safety. It just needs the laws of physics to continue to operate.

Beyond those three days, it still doesn't need backup power. It merely needs the ability to pump more water into that tank (which could be provided by simple diesel-powered pumps or a fire engine).

[MarineCombatEngineer]

18. Very informative,

thanks for that info.

I learn alot on DU for informed members.

[Marcuse]

5. Hopefully terrorists (domestic or foreign) won't target the Georgia plant.

[Martin68]

6. Hopefully terrorists won't target the many many radioactive material sites generated by nuclear

power plants. It's a far easier, and potentially more profitable target. Dirty bombs just require some TNT (or Semtex and C4) and a deposit of radioactive material of any kind. The charge sends the radioactive matter over a wide radius and everything inside is considered to be irradiated. The effect can be more psychological than actual material destruction because no one knows how potent the material is in terms of half-life, or toxicity, or how far it actually travelled after the detonation. The panic induced has the greatest strategic value, as the area will be considered by most to be uninhabitable and dangerous to visit.

[womanofthehills]

8. Problem also is - all the radioactive spent rods are on site

and they need constant water to cool them.

[Martin68]

9. Right. So not only is it available for theft, but it is also a threat to groundwater.

Not good.

[FBaggins]

17. That's a common misunderstanding

Spent fuel rods just need to be in a pool of water for a few years. After that, they are often moved to concrete casks that require no water at all.

[robodruid1]

10. Excellent

We need plentiful, cheap power if we are ever going to get to a "star-trek" like utopia.

[hunter]

13. This is good news. We need to quit fossil fuels now.

The bad news is that the U.S.A. seems to have lost its ability to effectively manage large projects like this. Costs go out of control, delays are endemic. Personally, I think the bad habits of our defense and health care industries, and the perverse economic theories of our corporate culture, have a lot to do with this. Simply believing in things doesn't make them so. Measuring success or failure by the size of one's revenue streams doesn't make the world a better place.

On the other hand, kilowatt hour for kilowatt hour, the environmental footprint of nuclear power is much smaller than any other energy resource, including hybrid natural gas / solar / wind systems.

Nuclear power is a seventy year old technology. All the major issues have been solved. That's not true about fossil fuels. We deal with all the death and destruction caused by fossil fuels by ignoring the problems. There's enough gas in the ground, for example, to destroy what's left of earth's natural environment as we know it. It's best we leave that gas in the ground, even if our solar and wind power follies are not viable without it.

[Hortensis]

15. Nuclear reactors currently supply about 50% of the U.S.'s carbon-free energy. Half!

But energy companies have been dismantling nuclear reactors because they're aging out and more expensive than the fossil-fuel natural gas most are switching dependence to.

In the real world -- the one where we didn't do what the Democratic Party has been calling for for more than 50 years -- combating climate change absolutely requires replacing dirty energy sources with clean alternatives. Right now we can't do it without supplementing with comparatively clean nuclear.

In other words, developing supplemental nuclear power in this era of climate emergency is highly progressive and necessary. A situational reality we created and now have to deal with. And I'd like to suggest that fighting that reality with denial and obsolete arguments is not progressive. In future, when the situation allows, the new reactors we need to build now will be replaced with the better energy technology available then.

Georgia Power's plan is to be coal-free by 2028, very dependent on these new Vogtle plants, but that's still too slow and too little. Their coal phase-out still includes replacing some with natural gas. The new Vogtle units will hopefully finally be up and running by the beginning and end of next year. The first new nuclear plants built in the U.S. in 30 years, with new nuclear technology being developed here and around the planet.

Considering everything, I'm really looking forward to achievement of this step.