heckofajobbrownie Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 ROCKVILLE, Maryland (Reuters) - Regulators on Thursday approved plans to build the first new nuclear power plant in more than 30 years in spite of objections of the panel's chairman who cited safety concerns stemming from Japan's disastrous 2011 Fukushima disaster. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted 4-1 to allow Atlanta-based Southern Co to build and operate two new nuclear power reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. The units will cost Southern and partners about $14 billion and enter service as soon as 2016 and 2017. The Obama administration has offered Southern and its partners $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees as an incentive. ...What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Beats a new coal plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Also beats older nuclear plants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 It's about time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I guess no one is bothered by government loan guarantees to oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy companies. Just clean energy. What a surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I would think the gonvernment would want to help any American energy source grow I guess no one is bothered by government loan guarantees to oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy companies. Just clean energy. Since when was nuclear not "clean energy"? Yeah there is a little waste, but not enough to put it in the same league as coal and oil. Oh and it is about time we did this. It'll take a lot to reverse our genious population's negative views of nuclear power, but this is a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I'm all for clean energy. I consider Nuclear Energy to be a step in the right direction. The limited nuclear waste is nothing compared to the tons of coal slag produced from mines, coal ash from burning it, and and mercury and sulfur released in the air from burning it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Nuclear is clean in so far as it produces no carbon, but it's not "clean energy" in the sense of being renewable energy. It has a byproduct that we don't really know what to do with short of leaving it in a giant pool or burying it in a mountain in Nevada. Is it preferable to burning fossil fuels? Sure, I'm with PE. As long as you don't get Fukashima. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I take it green energy has failed at being cheap? When will he start allowing permits to oil companies for drilling? Will it be before or after $5.00 a gallon gas that we are hearing about? I heard on the news that the plants will be up and running in 5 years. FYI: It takes 10-15 years to complete unless you plan on taking short cuts. Does Fukushima ring a bell with anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.