Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
CyberB0B39 writes: "The Department of Energy is set to approve $6.5B for a Georgia nuclear power plant, the first such plant in more than 3 decades. While other nuclear plants are shutting down due to competition from natural gas, Atlanta-based Southern Company is forging ahead with its planned construction of the plant."
[ED Note: "For those that are wondering, the new nuclear plant will be based on the AP1000 design by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, a company based in Pittsburgh, PA and a subsidiary of Toshiba."]
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
DOE to OK $6.5B for Georgia Nuclear Plant
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1000 moderator points
| 34 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm not a robot like you. I don't like having disks crammed into me... unless they're Oreos, and then only in the mouth.
-- Fry
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jcd on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:44PM
By why on Earth would the DoE spend money to support the population?
"What good's an honest soldier if he can be ordered to behave like a terrorist?"
(Score: 1) by velex on Sunday February 23 2014, @01:32PM
*sigh*
As someone who agrees with GP's sentiment as concerns rooftop solar at least, where's my +1 sad but true mod?
In my perfect world, instead of subsidizing oil companies, we'd subsidize rooftop solar installations. In addition to providing power during summer at least when it's most needed to run air conditioners (and maybe a little power where I live in the winter during the 2 or so days between Labor Day and Memorial Day when we see the sun), I wonder how such a project would improve the economy by creating a whole bunch of jobs to make it happen. On the other hand, one would have to consider what would happen to those jobs once every rooftop already has a solar installation and we move to maintenance mode.
Unfortunately, we seem to live in a world that's addicted to the economic model of consumerism. Well, of course, there's nothing stopping me from scrimping and saving over the next few years so that I can get some panels on my own roof. However, the sad but true part comes in when we realize how easy it is for big players to get deals and special dispensation and discounts and whatnot and how unwilling we are to give a private individual anything, no matter how much it may be beneficial for all of us, because we demand that private individuals prove that they're morally virtuous. It would be terrible if the wrong person got a cheaper electricity bill.
Otherwise I should probably just add that I'm all in favor of expanding nuclear power. Is it dangerous? Well, the way I look at it, it's only as dangerous as we're willing to be irresponsible about it. Driving a car is dangerous, which is why we discourage drunk driving instead of concluding that because some people drive drunk and kill others, cars are just too dangerous period. (Note on the car analogy: in actuality, cars are far, far more dangerous than nuclear at present if you count injuries and deaths.) We're going to have to get power from somewhere once fossil fuels run out. Solar/hydro/geothermal/etc won't be able to do it. Fossil fuels will run out, even if it takes 200 or 300 more years before they do.
(Score: 1) by demonlapin on Sunday February 23 2014, @01:41PM
That money - because it's a subsidy - comes from either taxing people, or from borrowing against future tax receipts. So you do see the jobs that are directly created, but you don't see the jobs doing other things that weren't created because the money that people would have spent to create them was taxed away to subsidize solar.