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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by evilviper on Sunday February 23 2014, @12:06AM
I imagine most homeowners can already get a $13,000 loan, so those "half a million" probably don't NEED a government "loan guarantee" to put up solar panels in the first place. Most of them *could* start doing that now, if they chose. FORCING them to do so would be something else, entirely...
And all those solar installations will only give you a fraction of the 2x1117MW these nuke plants will supply.
Considering that those cost several times more than lead-acid batteries, it doesn't seem like they're a good deal, even in the very long-term.
No. It really doesn't work that way...
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lgw on Sunday February 23 2014, @03:15AM
Well put! I think solar + batteries on ever roof is the future, but it's sadly not the present. We're nearly there - it's tantalizing - but current tech still doesn't cut it. Top-quality photoelectric panels are bottlenecked on rare materials, and price would go through the roof if demand picked up. Batteries aren't quite there yet to allow the base load capacity to actually be reduced in cities.
We've come far enough that the idea isn't fantasy any more - it's near future SF. But it's still fiction right now, and I'm eager to see a modern nuclear plant get built and see how it compares to what advocates like myself have been claiming. In theory new plants should be very safe and much more cost effective, but they're as vulnerable as ever to corruption and shortcuts while being built.
If we can build one in the Deep South and not have it become a boondoggle and hidden safety menace (due to low quality parts sneaking in and cash sneaking out), that will be a great sign for America.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by evilviper on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:56AM
Batteries don't make much sense if you're connected to the grid. They will always have SOME losses, even if they're reduced from the current level, in addition to the up-front investment.
Meanwhile, running wind turbines all night, cranking-up hydro off-peak, and using solar-thermal with heat storage, etc., doesn't have the chemical conversion storage losses, nor the extra inverter losses. And if you do need storage, in the event of occasional excessive supply, pumped hydro is a far better option for grid-scale applications, and is extremely cheap to add-on to any existing dams.
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 3, Informative) by mojo chan on Sunday February 23 2014, @06:52AM
I imagine most homeowners can already get a $13,000 loan
I don't know about the US but a $13,000 loan is not small thing for most people where I live. The government here has a scheme where you are loaned the money but all the repayments go onto your energy bills, the idea being that the panels reduce the bills by more than the repayments. After 10 years it is all profit for you.
I don't think anyone would suggest forcing people to have solar panels, but if given the opportunity most people would take them up for free. Zero electricity bills is a rather attractive proposition. The problem is that the US is not very good at funding stuff like that, where the benefit is only to the electorate and not to some corporation that is bankrolling the local politicians. Look at the number of places that have banned municipal broadband.
And all those solar installations will only give you a fraction of the 2x1117MW these nuke plants will supply.
Doesn't matter. It is always cheaper to reduce demand by installing solar and improving homes than it is to build new capacity. Plus, it reduces emissions far more, and you get rid of the network losses by having power generated close to where it is used. There are knock-on effects too, like the fact that everyone's energy bill goes down and they can charge their electric vehicles very cheaply or for free, further reducing emissions. It also creates a lot more employment installing and maintaining a large number of panels, rather than just one nuclear plant.
Considering that those cost several times more than lead-acid batteries, it doesn't seem like they're a good deal, even in the very long-term.
I agree. The Japanese have developed low temperature sodium sulphur batteries that are an ideal fit. There are some 50MW range installations up and running already to back up wind farms. They can be installed at residences too. It is also possible to recycle used NiMH or lithium cells for this application.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday February 23 2014, @08:14PM
It's a pretty modest expense in the US. For some context:
2010, USA new home prices - Median: $221,800 Average: $272,900
"The 2011 Median Income of US households was $50,054 per annum"
So $13k is just 6% of the median home value, and just 26% of the annual household income (though a loan would typically allow 15-30 years to repay).
It's already clear that just installing solar panels won't do it. What were your other ideas for "improving homes"? If you're talking about extra insulation or similar, that probably won't help much with ELECTRICAL demand, because home heating dominates domestic energy usage in the US, and that's generally via natural gas, NOT electricity. I can see how it would help in tropical climates.
I would agree if we were talking about coal power plants, but these nuclear power plants will have almost zero emissions. Also, grid losses in the US only average 7%... Not a substantial amount, and certainly not enough to change the math in favor of 1/5 as much solar capacity.
Thanks for the tip, I'll look those up some time.
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 1) by TheRaven on Sunday February 23 2014, @09:33AM
The other problem with deploying solar is that the technology is advancing quite quickly. Fourth generation nuclear power plants have a planned lifetime of 50 or so years and have been around for a couple of decades. Unless there's some unexpected LENR or fusion breakthrough, you're better off building a nuclear power plant now and starting to use it than you are waiting for a few years and then building it.
For solar, the value proposition is quite different. It has a large up-front cost with around a 10-year ROI, but within five years you're likely to be able to get panels that are either much more efficient or much cheaper (or both), making a five-year ROI feasible. Or, to put it another way, you can either spend that $13K now and be energy neutral and paid off in ten years, or spend it in five years and be energy neutral and paid off in ten years. Which makes more financial sense?
sudo mod me up