Smoother path to cleaner energy

  • Follow Editorials

In a nation that's craving cheaper alternative energy that doesn't belch out ozone-depleting pollution, the proposed addition of two nuclear reactors at Burke County's Plant Vogtle clearly is good news.

Now there is this added bit of good news: Vogtle has been groomed to become a "reference site" for other proposed nuclear power plants.

Licensing nuclear power facilities requires reams of documentation, much of it identical among plants using the same equipment -- in this case, Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor, which is what is slated to be built at Vogtle and five other nuclear sites in the Southeast.

To streamline the license application process, information relating to generic training and operational procedures -- information already approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- can be duplicated by similar sites.

"Then there would be all the site-specific things, like seismology and hydrology and a lot of other issues that are specific to a particular site," explained Southern Nuclear spokeswoman Beth Thomas. "Those would have to be done at each site."

Simplifying the application process steps up the timetables to bring new nuclear plants online to address America's energy needs. Alternative sources such as wind and solar power certainly should be pursued, but they are still years from being commercially viable. Until more sources can be realistically tapped, we must opt for more reachable and logical alternatives -- and that definitely includes nuclear power.

Streamlining in this case shouldn't be confused with administrative skimping. Particularly in terms of safety, nuclear power is regulated rigorously and successfully. As Andrew C. Kadak, a nuclear science professor at MIT, wrote last June in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: "The NRC's focus on a risk-informed, performance-based regulatory system has allowed the industry to strike that needed balance between safety and economic performance."

The choice of Vogtle as a reference site is important and telling. It speaks to the plant's progress in moving to the front of the pack among nuclear sites awaiting regulatory approval. If Vogtle continues apace, it could have its early site permit approved later this year, and its new reactors could come online as early as 2016.

That's not a moment too soon. It would be difficult to move forward in the 21st century if we don't pursue and implement cleaner energy production.

Comments

GACopperhead

My only concern is what is eventually to happen to the spent fuel? In truth, there's no really safe way to store or dispose of it, and the consequences of sabotage are possible and truly fearsome.

44mag

Based on your informed expert opinion GACopperhead what exactly is unsafe about proposed methods of storage or disposal? Also I'd be interested in your expert opinion of the comparative risk analysis associated with the alternative energy sources including the effects on the economy associated with delays in bring those sources online! As far as the consequences of sabotage I wouldn't be worried, I'm sure President Obama has the only person capable of protecting it/us already picked. There might be a slight delay while he/she gets their income taxes in order.

jhvenier

Actually we have stored safely the waste generated to date. We would have a central storage facility if, the politicians would keep to themselves and not play the patty cake with things they shouldnt play with. proliferation is not going to happen and is mainly anti nuclear lies. Terrroist are likey to hit a target that they have a high percentage of success. Terrorist would be more likely to hit a city water plant or something of the like. A strike on a power plant that has armed security, intrusion alert, security fencing, locked gates and doors, and local response from police to tell of a few does not make it a target with alot of success.....Really, this is truley anti talk.

Longleaf

Two comments: (1) Even "the streamlined" seven year approval time is absurdly long. We (duPont) built the five SRP reactors in about a year each, and they all operated faultlessly for some three decades. (2) GAC(above): The answer to spent fuel is easy. Reprocess it and make new fuel pieces from the remaining unburned fuel, as we did without incident at SRP for decades. Use the existing SRP canyons (200 areas) and duplicate the MOX plant now under construction at SRS. Take the plutonium from the fission products and disposal via plants like SRS's DWPF is much easier.

Riverman1

The whole world is moving to nuclear power. We are lagging because of the same greenie whines. There is no other alternative in the near future. We will open Yucca Mt. if the need arises and more realistic leaders are leading.

joe hill

Ask the folks in the Columbia valley (Washington and Oregon) living near Hanford if there are problems with nuclear waste.

Top headlines

Michaux: Tiger-Phil duel whets Masters appetite

For all the intrigue generated by some fresh faces in golf the last couple of years, nothing injects life into a season like an old-fashioned Tiger-Phil duel.
Online Database by Caspio
Click here to load this Caspio Online Database.
Loading...