They used the wrong rebar in the concrete pads for the reactors. I believe they had to tear it up and redo the pads. 3 billion over cost so far.
http://bettergeorgia.org/2017/04/09/more-problems-for-plant-vogtle/
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Reuters: Utilities ditch reactors that were to launch U.S. nuclear renaissance
- Thread starter Muffin1611
- Start date
They used the wrong rebar in the concrete pads for the reactors. I believe they had to tear it up and redo the pads. 3 billion over cost so far.
http://bettergeorgia.org/2017/04/09/more-problems-for-plant-vogtle/
DrROBschiz
Member
Thats a more accurate statement
Not relevant for now. Its cooking and who knows if those goals will be achieved but they are worth pursuing
Bitch Pudding
Member
So, they'll just print new money, what's the problem?
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Stigma has zero to do with the reason Vogtle failed or why Charleston also bailed on this idea cause they looked at the fucking epic diaster that is Vogtle and chose the bail out route.
As it is Southern Company is still in talks on if they should pull the eject button and the rip cord on their parachute to get out of this now that the judge ruled they have full access to the project.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
dafuq are you talking about? I'm talking about Nuclear energy in general, not a single reactor.
If you're going to bring up random companies or plants in the industry, I can do that too.
Im sure Bruce Power, Urenco, OPG etc. are crying about how much money they're caking.
DrROBschiz
Member
LWRs are doomed to fail
They are better than their 50s counterparts but just in safety
Cost and efficiency are still trapped in the 50s
we should have iterated into new designs and ideas forever ago
These Gen 4 LWRs are the last gasp of this old mistake
The irony being that outside of their problems these reactors are still very productive and safe during their lifetimes. Better than burning coal and gas
But way below the potential of fission tech
We likely may never know what that peak potential was
You are absolutely wrong. Nuclear waste is one of the biggest issues facing us, and nuclear energy comes with way too many risks. Nuclear needs to be gone yesterday.
Now nuclear FUSION, on the other hand, I eagerly await and fully support.
More realistically though, wind and solar are making amazing progress, and I imagine way more innovation in green energy that we have yet to discover.
PdotMichael
Banned
Even if we expect that fusion reactors are ready for commercial use in the 50's. At that point anything else than getting our energy 100% from renewable energy sources would be a disaster for humanity.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Vogtle is a big deal cause they were the first to get the go ahead in the US in decades. Westinghouse was the first company to get clearance from the government to try and build a new Nuclear facility here.
There's a reason this project was so high profile. It was a litmus test so to speak on how this was gonna go.
It's also worth noting this project is in close proximity to the SC project that is the reason this thread exists. They are about roughly 2-3 hours apart. As cited in the OP's article part of the reason SC's try and this stopped is directly collated to the fact that GA's try has been such an epic engineering failure.
They are (were) both Westinghouse projects fyi.
DrROBschiz
Member
I disagree
Nuclear is just as important im my mind but i can see that people lack any confidence without something to prove otherwise
Im just happy scientists havent given up
Buba Big Guns
Banned
Read my post
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=245099925&postcount=37
Nuclear waste has an engineering solution, and just like renewables, has up coming innovation that can reprocess it has fuel.
Also, I didn't know renewables were a waste free energy source...I'd love to see the data backing that up.
So you're saying at no point during any of part of this timeline did some resistance crop up as a part of some fears about Nuclear Power?
Also I'm not just talking about Vogtle.
The McCain of science groups.
And that's precisely what I'm arguing about. Why was there such a long gap in this shit? We could have doubled down on this kind of technology and gotta it down perfect but instead we got scared and decided to dick around and debate maybe dipping our toes way later.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Not with regards to the actual article in question no. The OP's article has nothing to do with stigma.
It was all engineering, budgeting, planning ect... failures. Didn't help that both jobs at two separate facilities simultaneously self destructed. So it wasn't like Westinghouse could bank on one job to help prop up the other. Hence the bankruptcy back in March.
Also good luck getting the likes of Duke or Southern Company to give this another go anytime soon. Investors aren't gonna go for that shit.
Yes technology will progress even with nuclear safety/waste, but the materials and energy source itself is harmful to life. They all carry the risk of meltdown or leaks. No matter how safe we make them, they have the potential to cause us great harm. None of the materials involved in green energy run the risk of catastrophic failure.
I realize nuclear energy works very well and that can't be denied. It carries too much risk by its very nature.
StarCreator
Member
You say this like no one ever dies in coal or oil related accidents. There's no such thing as a power source with no risk.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Nuclear Waste is like last on the reason Nuclear Power is currently a non starter in the US.
It's currently all business and engineering.
It's currently all business and engineering.
DrROBschiz
Member
Yup agreed
Honestly Nuclear needs to retract from the commercial space until a new industry can emerge
We arent really equipped to support a large scale commercial base load design anymore and simply burning uranium at the current efficiency is unacceptable
If Fission is ever to see the light of day again they need to start over and build simpler, safer, small scale base load reactors and work their way up
but the materials and energy source itself is harmful to life
Uranium is a naturally occuring element in the earth.
They all carry the risk of meltdown or leaks.
Not all designs and gen4 LWRS are incredibly safe. Thats not the point. The economics is
No matter how safe we make them, they have the potential to cause us great harm
Not true at all. All Nuclear energy incidents combined have the lowest death toll among the energy industry. And Iteration and growth makes Nuclear safer over time not the other way around. The issue is that Nuclear is completely stagnant thanks to industry doubling down on a very bad design (Not entirely their fault... the real story is... complicated)
And dont take this as me not supporting renewables. The tech is great and needs to be pushed ahead. Im just saying Nuclear shouldnt be left behind
Its applications are viable but it needs to go back to research institutions and universities. LWR's are no longer the commercial flagship in my mind even in Gen4
What? No, I don't actually like coal or oil either. I want the safest, cleanest energy source available. I think that is currently wind and solar. I don't think that either of those are without their own faults, but I believe they are currently the best way to proceed.
You have a hard argument to sell in a thread about nuclear doing very poorly.
I don't disagree with this, which again is why I'm pretty saddened by it's current inability. It was a dead idea before really even being given the chance to take off.
Dsyndrome
Member
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or what actually happened with Fukushima.
Fukushima had poor design decisions with the systems meant to keep the removal of latent heat going, hence the fuel element failure. Modern reactors can easily be made be "shut down" in the source range.
DrROBschiz
Member
Im more optimistic for Solar over Wind but they all have their optimal applications
I would still be more comfortable having a reliable source of base load power that isnt backed up with batteries
Nuclear COULD be that power
I would like to see
- Smart Grid Infrastructure
- Renewables decentralized. Large scale power plants seem inferior to decentralized power in my mind.
- Nuclear baseload but more smaller and modular plants that require less infrastructure, are simpler and WAY more efficient
AliasGreed
Member
If I remember correctly after TMI (Three Mile Island) the President but a stop to new reactors being built, it was never revisited.
Sad part is that TMI was not a nuclear disaster, it was a nothing really. The containment did its job and nothing leaked.
The Chinese are currently building new AP1200 reactors that takes them 5 years and under 10 billion dollars, this incompetence is incredible.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Before Fukushima, I used to blame the misinformation and lies being spread about this industry in every form of media. It was a popular target, for not much reason (well there was Chernobil, but that plant was really old, and well, it was Russia)
However, after Fukushima, I can't blame people from being sceptical anymore. Looking in the hindsight, Fukushima plant in and on itself seems like it was a madmans decision. To build a plant there, in an area of the world constantly plagued by earthquakes AND tsunamis, seriously wtf were they thinking? Plus it's Japan - a technologically advanced country, so that puts extra doubt into the whole thing. You now have to be pretty much a scientist, or extremely well informed to not think that Fusion power is a horrible thing for humanity, and even then you have the simple issue of plant building cost that just keeps getting worse. Industry has done this to itself with just a few really bad decisions, it seems.
Then, there's the issue of R&D. Why the newer technologies have not been actively researched? It was always the same old thing + a bit better failsafe, that's it. What happened to thorium?
However, after Fukushima, I can't blame people from being sceptical anymore. Looking in the hindsight, Fukushima plant in and on itself seems like it was a madmans decision. To build a plant there, in an area of the world constantly plagued by earthquakes AND tsunamis, seriously wtf were they thinking? Plus it's Japan - a technologically advanced country, so that puts extra doubt into the whole thing. You now have to be pretty much a scientist, or extremely well informed to not think that Fusion power is a horrible thing for humanity, and even then you have the simple issue of plant building cost that just keeps getting worse. Industry has done this to itself with just a few really bad decisions, it seems.
Then, there's the issue of R&D. Why the newer technologies have not been actively researched? It was always the same old thing + a bit better failsafe, that's it. What happened to thorium?
Jimmy Carter kneecapped new nuclear power after 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl (which was for all sakes an intentional meltdown) didn't help public perception either.
It's one of the few things I'll disagree with Carter on.
DrROBschiz
Member
AP1200's are a huge upgrade from all the coal they are burning so thats nice
They are also heavily invested into R&D for future new reactors and I wish them the best of luck
If they can make a robust new design that works that will be a huge boon for them
Buba Big Guns
Banned
That risk is extremely low in almost every Nuclear energy country. Again, it's one of the most regulated and over engineered industries in the world.
Also (will provide references if anyone wants), Nuclear power life cycle GHG emissions (per kwh) are lower than solar, and just as low as wind. Coupled with much lower land use requirements, it's probably the best energy source to fight climate change since you can deploy it on such a large scale.
Leaching of heavy and rare earth materials and e-waste is also a problem that has the potential to cause billions in damage. The advantage of nuclear is that all of its waste is tracked and stored in a way that the probability of leakage is extremely low. No other energy source has this (or it's waste costs included into it's overall price), even though waste from other sources have devastating consequences as well if released into the environment (which they are on a large scale).
You can argue that we're moving towards sources that are modular and more suited towards microgrids in general, which is true, and nuclear is less suited towards that. There is however upcoming small modular reactors that can enter that market as well.
DO NOT TEMPT ME WITH YOUR VILE ECONOMICS TOMFOOLERY, MILK PRODUCT WENCH
Man... Just imagine what they could have done with 9 billion dollaroos.
For example, the Agua Caliente Solar Project in Arizona (Wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agua_Caliente_Solar_Project ) is a tiny bit less than one squared kilometre in size and cost around 1.8 billion dollars, all inclusive. Five times that would be quite nice, napkin math wise.
For the lazy: The above facility puts out 740GWh per year (rated power is 290MW). From the first idea to completion took six years, actual construction was less than three, during which it already started producing power. The workers actually rigged them up faster than they could produce and deliver the panels, so they took a break for a while. Still: Wham bam thank you ma'am. No troubles with the neighbours, no international agencies breathing down your neck. No bad publicity, barely any waste, no huge problem if a fault occurs.
dragonelite
Member
Are those reactor also made to with stand a missile or a war?
Given the costs and risks, i rather have my government invest in solar and wind energy.
Given the costs and risks, i rather have my government invest in solar and wind energy.
DrROBschiz
Member
I almost feel like small scale modular and new designs are where Nuclear can make a comeback
Modular plants could give baseload power to regions that can afford to build a smart grid since it can supply traditional baseload power
randomengine
Banned
Nuclear energy is based on a fallacy: The expectation of continuous energy. There will come a time we will run out of energy. In the event of an energy crisis, we must find a way to continuously cool the fuel in every power plant across the country for 10 years.
The most likely energy crisis is that of oil. Which need not disappear to be a crisis, scarcity exacerbated by market forces could cause such a crisis. In that event, all energy needs to be reserved to keep those plants going to prevent meltdowns.
A fundamental flaw of the nuclear energy system and one that has not been solved.
All other forms of energy don't turn into bombs once other forms of energy disappear. Nuclear is a mistake and should be scuttled ASAP. If we started today, it would take 10 years at least to see it accomplished. Best to do it now while we can expect continuous power.
If it is too radioactive for the system to work, then that system has failed. The point of this system is to prevent overheating of the core. It is difficult for me to imagine a scenario where the safety system is still working, yet there has been a breach in the core RC vessel.
DrROBschiz
Member
I dont even know where to start with this one
But I dont blame you for your ignorance of the subject. The vast majority of people are. I dont think its wise to spout nonsense though
I would rather encourage you to actually educate yourself on the subject... or dont and just be happy to say... "I don't know much about this"
Thats a much smarter thing to say than what you just posted
Here is what I will give you. Pessimism about Nuclear energy in its current state (which is roughly the state its been stuck in for awhile) isn't unwarranted
Regardless of whether or not it has been blown out of proportion or not (it has) the harsh reality is that Nuclear needed to have diverse research and directions a long time ago
Instead we went with one design, built a huge infrastructure around it, handed the keys to private enterprise and walked away.
randomengine
Banned
*shakes head*
You expended all that effort for a rebuttal and yet provided nothing but ad hominem. My math teacher in high school who is also a personal friend has a degree in Nuclear Engineering and went to MIT. We have had conversations on this subject and I have also expressed to him my arguments and reservations. I have not heard a compelling counter argument. All I need is a link, I can read and make all the conclusions myself. Point me towards a nuclear plant design that doesn't have at it's core the expectation of continuous power in order to prevent catastrophic situations. Given your claim to knowledge, it should be an easy task.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
Why don't you provide any sources since you're the one making claims of "continuous energy"
Better yet, a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vggzl9OngaM
This information is readily available man. And most reactors have these safety features, not just CANDUs
DrROBschiz
Member
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR/Safety/Passive-Safety-Systems
AP1000s have passive safety features
This isnt a new thing
I was cautiously optimistic about LFTR for a long time but unfortunately we may not see a modern implementation for years if at all
Here is a digestable video about LFTR. Note the year though. Ive become less a fan of the design as I dug deeper but i do lpve how much of the basics he covers especially regarding LWRs
https://youtu.be/uK367T7h6ZY
There are other alternative nuclear designs but outside of experimental and research reactors LWR is the only commercial design (and its iterations) delivering power.
AP1000s have passive safety features
This isnt a new thing
I was cautiously optimistic about LFTR for a long time but unfortunately we may not see a modern implementation for years if at all
Here is a digestable video about LFTR. Note the year though. Ive become less a fan of the design as I dug deeper but i do lpve how much of the basics he covers especially regarding LWRs
https://youtu.be/uK367T7h6ZY
There are other alternative nuclear designs but outside of experimental and research reactors LWR is the only commercial design (and its iterations) delivering power.
Please do some research before spouting nonsense, thanks.
randomengine
Banned
Passive safety features of the AP1000s and the CANDU do not eliminate the need for continuous power to cool the reactors. They slow down the fallout and reduce the time/chance, but they do not eliminate it. Unfortunately, my assertion still stands - nuclear power as it is currently design assumes an external source of continuous power and therefore is the major flaw of the design.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
That's not how real life works. You're talking about a scenario where all humans suddenly disappear, and the the failure modes cannot be mitigated in any way. EVEN in that scenario, the fallout in modern reactors would be limited. Also, you can make that exact argument for pretty much any energy source. If all humans suddenly died, you'd have massive toxic releases from coal, natural gas, biomass and even renewable infrastructure (gas pipeline explosions, carbon monoxide releases, NO and sulphur releases, Cadmium releases from renewables, heavy metals ravaging the ground water supply) on a scale that would dwarf anything from Nuclear plants.
If you're talking about something like Fukushima, again the probability of that happening in modern reactors is almost 0:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vggzl9OngaM
DrROBschiz
Member
chekhonte
Member
Damn, there is one being built on the NW peninsula of Washington state that was supposed to provide affordable power to most of the state considering that seattle is mostly self sufficient with it's hydro electric. The rest of washington buys it's power from other state mostly in the form of coal and natural gas generated electricity.
This bums me out. We need to get on nuclear and get the electric car boom going.
This bums me out. We need to get on nuclear and get the electric car boom going.
Elfforkusu
Member
Killing nuclear power is going to be the most impactful thing the environment movement is remembered for.
Gg
Gg
StarCreator
Member
Sounds to me like the issue was more incompetence on the part of the builders and designers overselling what is possible with the budget they were given.
Muffin1611
Banned
Netherscourge
Banned
Not at that price point.
Pretty much all of the anti nuke types don't know what the source range is, or they wouldn't be so vehemently anti-nuke.
They are basically anti-vaxxers but like 0.02% of the population has any direct experience or knowledge of nuclear power, so it just flies by mostly unquestioned.
Similar threads
- Locked