Nuclear Power Largest Increase In Electricity Production

[elektra]

The largest increase in electricity production since Watts Bar 2 began operating 8 years ago has just been achieved by Vogtle 3 in Georgia

Solar and Wind have bombed, with Nuclear power making a giant leap forward. All the solar and wind power in the USA will never touch the power produced by Vogtle 3 nuclear power plant.

Sadly, the sun has set on solar and wind, in two ways. Once the sun goes down, especially in the winter, solar and wind always decline. As in the sun is gone so no solar, and without the heating and cooling of the surface of the Earth winds also decline dramatically. Georgia will now be a power house for industry, laying to rest the propaganda that Solar panels and Wind Turbines is the fut

Nuclear power is back

Vogtle Unit 3 reaches 100 percent energy output for the first time

Final series of testing remains before the first newly constructed nuclear unit in the U.S. in over 30 years enters service

www.georgiapower.com

Georgia Power announced today Vogtle Unit 3 has safely reached 100 percent power, marking a major milestone towards commercial operation and service for customers. This milestone marks the maximum energy the unit is licensed to produce in the reactor core and is the first time the unit has reached its expected output of approximately 1,100 electric MW, which can power an estimated 500,000 homes and businesses.

 

[Donald H]

Next comes the risk factor with nuclear. It's not an easy choice but attitudes in America are going to make it the leading world proving ground.

Has Japan learned any lesson that can be passed on the the leading proponents of nuclear power?

It's a great discussion that's sorely needed now, as finding solutions can't be put off much longer.

Thank you America for being the Canary in the coal mine!

 

[elektra]

Next comes the risk factor with nuclear. It's not an easy choice but attitudes in America are going to make it the leading world proving ground.

Has Japan learned any lesson that can be passed on the the leading proponents of nuclear power?

It's a great discussion that's sorely needed now, as finding solutions can't be put off much longer.

Thank you America for being the Canary in the coal mine!

You are comparing today's technology with technology from the middle of the last century?

Zero risk.

 

[Donald H]

You are comparing today's technology with technology from the middle of the last century?

Zero risk.

You make a good point!

Based on that and other considerations, I'm all for America running with the nuclear ball!

The other big plus side is that nuclear defuses the issue on EV's and makes them the obvious solution for getting rid of fossil fuels.

It's almost like asking: Why didn't somebody think of this solution much sooner?

 

[Donald H]

You are comparing today's technology with technology from the middle of the last century?

Zero risk.

Doesn't look like Americans have much stomach to take on the pros and cons of this one?

I'm going to risk saying that most are still feeling some uncertainty.

As a Canadian I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm happy to be a referee and keep it on topic.

 

[elektra]

Doesn't look like Americans have much stomach to take on the pros and cons of this one?

I'm going to risk saying that most are still feeling some uncertainty.

As a Canadian I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm happy to be a referee and keep it on topic.

How does Canada not have a dog in this fight?

 

[Donald H]

How does Canada not have a dog in this fight?

In the sense that it's not Canada that has made the decision to go nuclear. We can sit back and watch the experiment run its course.
We may have enough luxury of hydro power to just watch for another 10 or 20 years.

We all need answers right now and so where do we turn to get them? Perhaps Japan for the con side, following the Fukishima disaster?

But our biggest problem right now is in getting some input from the forum's participants.

White 6 has reacted to my comments in post #2, and it appears he could be taking your side. But I made several comments there and so it's not clear. Hopefully he will join the discussion. He can usually stick to the topic without turning it into an emotional shitfight.

Are 'you' totally committed or do you have some reservations?

 

[elektra]

In the sense that it's not Canada that has made the decision to go nuclear. We can sit back and watch the experiment run its course.
We may have enough luxury of hydro power to just watch for another 10 or 20 years.

We all need answers right now and so where do we turn to get them? Perhaps Japan for the con side, following the Fukishima disaster?

But our biggest problem right now is in getting some input from the forum's participants.

White 6 has reacted to my comments in post #2, and it appears he could be taking your side. But I made several comments there and so it's not clear. Hopefully he will join the discussion. He can usually stick to the topic without turning it into an emotional shitfight.

Are 'you' totally committed or do you have some reservations?

You must not realize that Canada is upgrading at least 8 of the Canadian nuclear reactors, right now. Canada will be a Nuclear country, most likely forever.

Bruce on Lake Ontario, 8 reactors. All being upgraded as we speak.

 

[Donald H]

You must not realize that Canada is upgrading at least 8 of the Canadian nuclear reactors, right now. Canada will be a Nuclear country, most likely forever.

Bruce on Lake Ontario, 8 reactors. All being upgraded as we speak.

Good point, but I am aware. Upgrading is a lot different from what is being touted here on this thread. In some sense the upgrading could be seen as the opposite of throwing all caution to the wind.

Not to suggest that is what America is doing!
I'm pretty sure that all possibilities are being considered and it's not a case of capitalism grasping at the cheap and easy solution to the world's most pressing issue of global warming due to fossil fuel use?

Do you not have something positive to say about the power source for EV's becoming an irrelevant issue?

 

[elektra]

Good point, but I am aware. Upgrading is a lot different from what is being touted here on this thread. In some sense the upgrading could be seen as the opposite of throwing all caution to the wind.

Not to suggest that is what America is doing!
I'm pretty sure that all possibilities are being considered and it's not a case of capitalism grasping at the cheap and easy solution to the world's most pressing issue of global warming due to fossil fuel use?

Do you not have something positive to say about the power source for EV's becoming an irrelevant issue?

Well, there is no man made global warming. Repeatedly debunked in numerous threads. If there is man made global warming, that is a good thing. Most people in canada choose a warmer climate for vacations, warmer is good.

EV's are bad for the environment. Another product with a short lifespan we do not need.

Darlington is wherw Cabada is building Canada's 1st new nuclear reactor in this century.

North America to include Canada is moving forward with Nuclear power.

 

[Donald H]

Here's one for the books! Japan is releasing radioactive waste at Fukishima into the ocean, but ensures us that they're diluting it with sea water before its release.

Find it in the comic book section!

 

[elektra]

Here's one for the books! Japan is releasing radioactive waste at Fukishima into the ocean, but ensures us that they're diluting it with sea water before its release.

Find it in the comic book section!

Much less radiation than will be released into the atmosphere, being released into the atmosphere, that has been released into the atmosphere manufacturing Wind Turbines and Solar Panels.

 

[SavannahMann]

In the sense that it's not Canada that has made the decision to go nuclear. We can sit back and watch the experiment run its course.
We may have enough luxury of hydro power to just watch for another 10 or 20 years.

We all need answers right now and so where do we turn to get them? Perhaps Japan for the con side, following the Fukishima disaster?

But our biggest problem right now is in getting some input from the forum's participants.

White 6 has reacted to my comments in post #2, and it appears he could be taking your side. But I made several comments there and so it's not clear. Hopefully he will join the discussion. He can usually stick to the topic without turning it into an emotional shitfight.

Are 'you' totally committed or do you have some reservations?

You’ve been waiting for me? Not only am I a moderate who believes in Nuclear Power, I live in Georgia.

I have been following the progress and am very happy the reactor is online. Over the next few years others at the site will be coming online.

Nuclear is over the long term reliable and cheap. It produces zero greenhouse gasses. Think about it. The workers produce more driving to and from work than the plant produces.

We can expect that plant to produce electricity for fifty years. Or more. Reliably.

And this is not a new thing for Georgia. It is one of two plants in Georgia. Between them they produce about 20% of the power we consume in the State. I’d support more plants. I’d even support enough plants to produce power to sell to other States.

The plants which are coming online are Gen 3 + which are far safer.

You mentioned Fukushima. Unlike Fukushima these plants are able to shut down safely without any real problems. They literally can go from full power to self cooling automatically.

I say build more.

 

[Donald H]

You’ve been waiting for me? Not only am I a moderate who believes in Nuclear Power, I live in Georgia.

I have been following the progress and am very happy the reactor is online. Over the next few years others at the site will be coming online.

Nuclear is over the long term reliable and cheap. It produces zero greenhouse gasses. Think about it. The workers produce more driving to and from work than the plant produces.

We can expect that plant to produce electricity for fifty years. Or more. Reliably.

And this is not a new thing for Georgia. It is one of two plants in Georgia. Between them they produce about 20% of the power we consume in the State. I’d support more plants. I’d even support enough plants to produce power to sell to other States.

The plants which are coming online are Gen 3 + which are far safer.

You mentioned Fukushima. Unlike Fukushima these plants are able to shut down safely without any real problems. They literally can go from full power to self cooling automatically.

I say build more.

And the risks? Give us a good sound argument to convince yourself!

 

[SavannahMann]

And the risks? Give us a good sound argument to convince yourself!

The risks? This design has a safe fail system designed in. It was originally tested during the Clinton Administration. If the pumps stop the control rods automatically are inserted. The core cools down on its own.

AP1000 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Comparing Fukushima to this design is like arguing the cars in the 1950’s were death traps so we should ban cars today.

 

[Donald H]

Natural disasters due to climate change.
Terrorists
On-site sabotage.
War.
Management taking unsafe shortcuts due to 17B$ cost overrun.
Dysfunctional government in Georgia.

We'll have to ask the experts for more risk assessments.

 

[SavannahMann]

Natural disasters due to climate change.
Terrorists
On-site sabotage.
War.
Management taking unsafe shortcuts due to 17B$ cost overrun.
Dysfunctional government in Georgia.

We'll have to ask the experts for more risk assessments.

Let me summarize. You don’t know anything. And you can’t find locals, and I’m one, who oppose it. So you are just going to pout.

 

[elektra]

Natural disasters due to climate change.
Terrorists
On-site sabotage.
War.
Management taking unsafe shortcuts due to 17B$ cost overrun.
Dysfunctional government in Georgia.

We'll have to ask the experts for more risk assessments.

The AP1000 is a passive safety design. That means if it fails;

The control rods that absorb neutrons automatically fall into the reactor, stopping the reaction.

Passive Residual Heat removal designed to operate automatically, without human interaction. This happens if there is a loss of power, a steam generator ruptured tube, loss of feedwater flow.

Terrorists? The containment building is built to withstand missile attacks, bombs, airplanes crashing into it.

Management shortcuts? Of what? Once built it runs maintenance free for years, and if anything fails, the passive safety design shuts the plant down.

All risk assessments have been addressed in the design.

 

[Donald H]

The AP1000 is a passive safety design. That means if it fails;

The control rods that absorb neutrons automatically fall into the reactor, stopping the reaction.

Passive Residual Heat removal designed to operate automatically, without human interaction. This happens if there is a loss of power, a steam generator ruptured tube, loss of feedwater flow.

Terrorists? The containment building is built to withstand missile attacks, bombs, airplanes crashing into it.

Management shortcuts? Of what? Once built it runs maintenance free for years, and if anything fails, the passive safety design shuts the plant down.

All risk assessments have been addressed in the design.

Then you've convinced yourself without even having to ask the world's experts.

None of the WTC buildings would have been harmed either if it wasn't for the CIA and the Martians.

 

[elektra]

Then you've convinced yourself without even having to ask the world's experts.

None of the WTC buildings would have been harmed either if it wasn't for the CIA and the Martians.

No, you have convinced yourself that they are unsafe and you are the one that is not consulting the world experts.

see for yourself

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1523/ML15230A045.pdf