Various news outlets report that Unit 2 of the Watts Bar nuclear power plant, owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), has begun operation. The reactor is rated at 1.15 GW and cost $4.7 billion ($4.09 per watt). Ground was broken on the project in 1973; construction work was suspended from 1985 to 2007.
Watts Bar Unit 1, which began operation in 1996, is one of three plants which manufacture tritium under contract to the U.S. government for use in hydrogen bombs.
Around the United States, 99 other commercial nuclear reactors are in operation and four others are under construction:
[...] Scana Corp./SCE&G's V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 in South Carolina and Southern Co.'s Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia.
In related news, the TVA is taking bids for its unfinished Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station in fabulous Hollywood, Alabama. It has received a bid of $38 million.
coverage:
- VOA News (U.S. government source)
- Fresno Bee
- Chattanooga Times Free Press
- Knoxville News Sentinel
- Bloomberg BNA
- The Hill
- Power Magazine
previously:
US Regulators Issue First Nuclear Plant Operating License Since 1996
Related Stories
Late last week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued its first new operating license in nearly two decades. It was issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority, which has finally completed the Watts Bar 2 reactor over 40 years after work was started on the site. The plant may begin generating electricity before the year is out.
Construction on the site was put on hiatus in 1985, but efforts to complete it were restarted in 2007. After work had restarted, the Fukushima disaster led to significant revisions of the safety regulations in the US; Watts Bar 2 becomes the first plant to meet all these requirements. Its license is good for 40 years.
According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, the total cost for completion was $6 billion.
The NRC's announcement is here. [PDF]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 26 2016, @04:31AM
So is this the first new nuclear power plant built and launched in the U.S. since 1996, or what?
Scratch that:
How is it better than its predecessors (or hyped designs like thorium)?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @04:47AM
Its not. Its been mothballed for decades. They just finished the last ~10% and turned it on now is all. Nothing new here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:08AM
There are a lot of plants like this one out there. 'Almost done' but never to be finished.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @11:11AM
So it's like GitHub for nuclear power plants?
(Score: 4, Informative) by butthurt on Wednesday October 26 2016, @08:01AM
Yes, in one of the articles I linked I read that the plant was 80% completed (whatever that means) when construction was suspended. Also, I read that it has the same rated power output as Unit 1. Therefore I assume that Unit 2 is very similar to Unit 1, on which construction was also begun in 1973.
Someone wrote in the Wikipedia article about the plant that the design of Unit 2 was changed to meet new safety standards enacted in response to the Fukushima disaster. The cited pages on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Web site don't actually say that, but they say:
The NRC issued a Mitigation Strategies Order on March 12, 2012, requiring all U.S. nuclear power plants to implement strategies that will allow them to cope without their permanent electrical power sources for an indefinite amount of time[.] These strategies must keep the reactor core and spent fuel cool, as well as protect the thick concrete containment buildings that surround each reactor.
-- http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-dashboard/mitigation-strategies.html [nrc.gov]
and
The NRC issued an Order on March 12, 2012, requiring all U.S. nuclear power plants to install water level instrumentation in their spent fuel pools. The instrumentation must remotely report at least three distinct water levels: 1) normal level; 2) low level but still enough to shield workers above the pools from radiation; and 3) a level near the top of the spent fuel rods where more water should be added without delay.
-- http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-dashboard/spent-fuel.html [nrc.gov]
This page has an overview of the NRC's response to the Fukushima disaster:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-dashboard/priorities.html [nrc.gov]
Unit 1 was completed in 1996 and I wondered whether it was the reactor alluded to in the headline of the previous SoylentNews story, "US Regulators Issue First Nuclear Plant Operating License Since 1996." However I wasn't curious enough to look that up.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Wednesday October 26 2016, @10:31AM
I found a 2011 CBS News article that said "Watts Bar, in Spring City, Tenn., is the last nuclear plant to be licensed in the U.S. [...]" That would refer to Unit 1. So, in a sens, those two reactors at Watts Bar are the country's newest commercial ones.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fukushima-type-disaster-inevitable-in-us/ [cbsnews.com]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday October 28 2016, @11:41AM
It also gets other things wrong, eg:
is one of three plants which manufacture tritium under contract to the U.S. government for use in hydrogen bombs
Tritium hasn't been used in anything but the very first "wet" bombs. Any weaponised version creates T on the fly from Li6D, which also provides the D that it fuses with.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Username on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:56AM
I wonder if has that trendy shag carpet, faux wood paneling, floral upholstery, pod chairs and a HAL 9000.
(Score: 0, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 26 2016, @07:28AM
Money for nothin'! (except fissile material appropriate for illegal weapons of mass destruction), chicks for free! Yes, you can light your lights, TVA, but at what moral cost? At long last, Federal Agency, have you no shame?
And this is why, I cannot tolerate all these alleged nerds, who say they support nuclear energy, but whom we know are military brats, probably with the family name of Bannon, who only advocate nukes because they think it produces military domination. Or, even more insidious: produces nuclear superiority on the basis of monthly power bills, rather than actual taxes. Oh, the irony! jhallow must be either so happy, or so distraught! Or both at the same time? Boom, Soylentils! Big Badda Boom!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mtrycz on Wednesday October 26 2016, @08:30AM
I agree with this comment (maybe not the wording), but feel humbled to upvote because of groupthink. Is it bad?
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 26 2016, @09:00AM
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
And:
I agree with this comment, but feel humbled to upvote because of groupthink.
There is no try, young paduwan! In Soviet Russia, the group thinks YOU!
Seriously, no, just go with what you know to be true. Sometimes the groupthink is the truth, sometimes it is not. The only way to be a free person is to know when it does and agree because it is true, not because it is the the hive mind telling you so. And contrairily, knowing unlike the Buzzard of Might that the opposite of the think of group is not always the way of right. Wing. Right wing, that is. Could be wrong. Thinking in a group, with Jesus!! and the Bundy clan and the Angle Moron. Labia Moron, Moloun Sheepers!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 26 2016, @10:01AM
Group think is roughly equal to mass hysteria, IMHO. When everyone thinks alike, no one is actually thinking.
Those who think contrary to the group are going to be right at least as often as they are wrong. Hysteria is always wrong. Witness the efforts at gun control.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday October 26 2016, @04:44PM
> Those who think contrary to the group are going to be right at least as often as they are wrong.
So you mean that the individual brain is as good as a group of brains... When did your boss start inviting me to his meetings?
> Hysteria is always wrong. Witness the efforts at gun control.
Thanks for using a period, but you could have used a semicolon. The hysteria of the people clinging to a free gun market (and rushing to buy more) every time you hit them in the face with evidence that better regulation is a necessary inconvenience, that's pretty wrong.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:36PM
Those who think contrary to the group are going to be right at least as often as they are wrong.
Unless they aren't. This is known as the balance fallacy.
The balance fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when two sides of an argument are assumed to have equal or comparable value regardless of their respective merits
Like, for example, if the larger group were to base their opinion on science and a massive accumulation of supporting evidence.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 26 2016, @09:37PM
Uhhhhh - group think has nothing to do with science. Or, only in so far as a scientist sometimes gets included in the group for one reason or another. You DO realize that scientists are subject to emotions, scientists are subject to injustices, and scientists can be brainwashed and/or influenced by those around them. Scientists are human, so sometimes, they join in the groupthink. But, it has nothing to do with science.
When science does influence the thinking of a group of people, that is called a consensus of opinion, or some such.
(Score: 1) by charon on Thursday October 27 2016, @01:56AM
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday October 27 2016, @04:52AM
Well, pro tip, look up the half-life of tritium. Has nothing to do with the point I was making. But still, military-industrial complex is the motive force behind nuclear power. And any time Charon, the ferryman to the underworld, does not understand what I am saying . . . hey! Could this be why I haven't died yet? Gosh, I hope this doesn't get out, because if I start making sense . . . .
[
[
[
Insert More Talking Heads here: Stop Making Sense!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @10:35AM
You made a good decision. He's just trolling in favor of groupthink.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 26 2016, @07:55PM
I think that what you think groupthink is, is not what groupthink actually is, even though you keep using that word.
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Friday October 28 2016, @07:55AM
Oh hey, this thread is still alive :)
What I actually wanted to imply was that my perception is that Soylent's median opinion on nuclear, is that "it's good and necessary: the benefits outweigh".
(But maybe it's the groupthink on the green site, and not actually Soylent, which being more popular has more shills among sincere supporters?
Anyway, I thought that your post was controversial and against the popular opinion here, and was dubious about upvoting it, that's all.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @04:08PM
Yes, you can light your lights, TVA, but at what moral cost? At long last, Federal Agency, have you no shame?
You mean the moral cost of fewer deaths and less radiation than existing solutions (primarily coal), less toxic waste, and effectively no CO2. Oh, wait... that's more moral benefits. Why should there be shame?
Yes, there are problems with nuclear (especially disposal of waste), but it's not obvious to me that it is appreciably worse than coal.
who only advocate nukes because they think it produces military domination
My limited understanding is that modern nuclear technology doesn't necessarily require or produce products relevant to nuclear weapons. However, even assuming it did, this argument is silly.
Knives can stab people, so should we should ban them from the kitchen? Cell phones can be used to remotely trigger bombs, so should we should confiscate all of them? Encryption can be used to hide terrorist activities, so should all the internet should be unencrypted?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday October 27 2016, @04:32AM
You are talking to someone who claims to be almost 2400 years old. Fissile Nuclear reactors produce waste that will emit lethal levels of radiation for more than 20,000 years. One of the interesting problems for the nuke waste disposal programs is how to mark this stuff as dangerous for people 20,000 years in the future, when all written language we have now will certainly be as obsolete as cuniform. Hubris, Manhattan is thy name. We are become death, the destroyer of worlds. This does not end well. Could it? Maybe. Worth the risk, without the need for weapons more destructive than Russia and North Korea? Probably not. So let's get some perspective, OK?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:04PM
Yes, let's do get some perspective. The 20K years is a bunch of bunk designed to make the whole thing look infeasible.
The more realistic outlook is that the waste will be hot enough to require isolation for 250-500 years (depending on your standards) if it is separated out from the actinides (aka useful nuclear fuel). Keep in mind, it was radioactive before we dug it out of the ground too.
High school students generally manage to read 250-500 year old English well enough to get the gist of it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:01PM
The moral cost of this nobody-killing, GHG-reducing power supply is quite a bit lower than many competitors. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 26 2016, @06:39PM
It is just that Nuclear power seems to never have actually been practical, except under subsidy from the military.
one of three plants which manufacture tritium under contract to the U.S. government for use in hydrogen bombs.
Funny how some people see this clearly when it comes to Iran's efforts at developing nuclear power!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @08:52AM
Did anyone else think $4.09 per watt is a bit of strange metric? What does it tell you? Wouldn't it be more interesting to divide this number over the planned running time?
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @10:37AM
Would 95% of the power necessary to energize a flux capacitor suit you better?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Wednesday October 26 2016, @06:30PM
Came looking for a Back To The Future reference, was not disappointed. Bravo!
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:21PM
It is strange but not for that reason. Nuclear (like most large scale power plants) tends to have their cost expressed as "cost per installed kW nameplate capacity" to more easily compare (powerplants exist at roughly every 20MW interval between 20 and 800MW and every 50MW up to about 1450MW so $/kW is very handy for comparisons).
4090$/kW puts it at about normal for US (slightly above france, quite a bit above s.korea, russia and china).
Search on the phrase "overnight costs" to see how it often is used.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:25PM
construction cost that is
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday October 26 2016, @09:16AM
I used the term "hydrogen bomb" but that's misleading, because most of the tritium that gives what we commonly call hydrogen bombs much of their explosive power is created at the time of the explosion from 6Li. Small amounts of tritium are used in various types of thermonuclear weapons, notably fusion-boosted fission designs and possibly the neutron bomb. In those, an initial fission explosion causes a fusion reaction, which produces neutrons that then cause additional fission. In those, the fusion makes the explosion much more powerful that it would otherwise be, but most of the energy of the explosion comes from fission.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-3.html [nuclearweaponarchive.org]
Some anti-nuclear activists wrote [wcpeace.org] that tritium "[...] is used in every warhead in the U.S. arsenal." Implying that the non-proliferation treaty's words about "preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" [un.org] apply to what the TVA is doing at Watts Bar Unit 1, they advocate that instead of manufacturing tritium, the U.S. could reduce the number of nuclear weapons it keeps on hand, recycling the tritium it already has as that tritium decays.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @10:46AM
While you lot are all "boo, nukes" and "hiss, nuclear waste", my question is: how is the added warmth going to affect the fishing patterns in the lake they use for cooling water? Fish go where they go and bite when they bite based on a lot of things but one of the big factors is water temperature. Also, how will this affect the thermocline (line in the water between the hot water above and cold water below, below which there is not enough oxygen to support fish, so they stay shallow-ish) in the summer? And you lot thought fishing was simple...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @11:23AM
Use to live close to such a lake.
From the old timers, not that much was changed (maybe some algae, but that's debatable) except for more people visiting the lake throughout the year because it was warm water. It was actually an odd though not unpleasant feeling jumping in and not feeling much of a chill at all. More like a tepidly warm shower.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @11:42AM
I was thinking more of the flatheads. They're a warm weather catfish and are damned difficult to catch in the winter because of the cold water. A nuke plant warming things up could make all the difference. Also the crappie tend to move to deep brush in the winter and this also might change that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @11:53AM
Oh definitely fishing areas moved, but it is hard to say whether that was expressly from the warm water or hoards more people splashing around in the water.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @12:01PM
Yeah. Since I'm actually living in TN at the moment and go fishing every chance I get, this isn't a purely theoretical question for me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 26 2016, @01:50PM
I favor renewables over any other form of electricity generation because it is easiest on the environment and can be generated where you are. Nuclear is not bad, though, if you do it right. France gets almost all of its electricity from nuclear. New York State gets a little more than a third. A lot of people who holler about Fukushima and Chernobyl do their hollering on computers running on, and in rooms lit by, electricity from nuclear power plants that they never hear about or think about because the plants are properly regulated and maintained. And certainly almost no Americans consider that without nuclear power the subs and aircraft carriers that protect them, couldn't.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by In hydraulis on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:38AM
the [nuclear power] plants are properly regulated and maintained
Aren't they all? Until we learn they're not, of course. See: every major incident so far.
Mind you, I'm a supporter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @04:56PM
Rest assured there will be no lack of fish.
They are stocked anyway by the state. Given the amount of fishing pressure those lakes get, they would be emptied otherwise.