Westinghouse strikes deal to build US nuclear power plants

[flashl]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Westinghouse Electric, a unit of the Japanese Toshiba Corp., said Tuesday it had struck a deal with Georgia Power to build two nuclear power plants in the southern United States, the first such projects in 30 years.

The two Westinghouse AP1000 power plants will be located at a site near Augusta, Georgia which already had two existing nuclear reactors.

"Agreements like the one announced with Georgia Power will also ensure that the United States will have the power it will need to support long-term economic growth," said Westinghouse chief executive Steve Tritch.

YN

[Hardrada]

1. Nukes are not the solution but part of the problem.

I usupected they'd try to bring them back.

[NNadir]

2. Don't worry. Nuclear power is dead.

It's gone.

It's not happening.

It's kaput.

It's done.

It's not economic.

Didn't you read Amory Lovins great geniusistic article in Foreign Affairs in 1980?

Coal is safe.

[Oerdin]

3. That's great news.

America needs more nuclear power plants. It's the key form of non-GHG producing power which can deliver the massive amounts of electricity we need right now. Sure, other forms can play a part and should but the majority will have to come from nuclear. That's just reality. Live with it.

[bananas]

4. Nope, every serious analysis concludes that nuclear will only play a small part. nt

[NNadir]

5. Will? Serious? Who are you citing as "serious?" Let me guess?

Amory Lovins, Walmart thug?

Nuclear power is the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy?

Only in fundie land, where hundred billion ton quanties of dangerous fossil fuel waste is considered "only a small part" can such experteratriciousnessly "serious" people be considered "analytical."

Actually analysis involves something about which the anti-nuke cult has been notoriously unenlightened.

It's called "numbers."

Here's some numbers:

Between 1980, the year that the illiterater energy "expert" Amory "Sam's Club" Lovins reported the death of nuclear power, it has produced 49623 billion kwh of electricity.

Wind power researcher Paul Denholm gives the carbon dioxide cost of coal power at being between 900-1000 grams per kwh. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 1903-1911.

He reports nuclear power has having a rate produces between 5 - 25 g/kwh, the lowest of all forms of energy he mentions including wind.

Now, you can't be a dumb fundie self declared anti-nuke expert if you can do math, but it follows that 50,000 billion kwh hours, or 50 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Now, dumb fundie anti-nukes neither know nor care about how much carbon dioxide is released each year, but the EIA data is clear on the point.

It's here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

Thus it's clear that nuclear output since 1980 would be the equivlanet of eliminating all of the carbon dioxide release on the entire planet for all purposes by all forms of dangerous fossil fuels for the years 2002 and 2001 with a little left over.

Only a fundie could call the opinion that this is "not much" an "expert" opinion.

There is NOT ONE anti-nuke fundie who can understand numbers, NOT ONE who can read, and NOT ONE who can think.

I note that the reason I didn't choose 2005 is because, in spite of the efforts of dumb fundies to cite dogma about how conservation will save us, world carbon dioxide releases are rising rapidly. Releases in 2005 were 115% of what they were in 2002.

This is hardly a surprise because dumb fundie are trying to destroy and restrain the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy in favor of their useless yuppie toys.

Nuclear could do much more but assholes with poor educations are trying to stop it and to destroy the best energy infrastructure ever build. It's amazing that anyone with a modicum of functional brain tissue could take the bunch of illterate vandals seriously.

[bananas]

6. Here are three serious studies

Here are three serious studies:
"IPCC Fourth Assessment Report" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
"Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding" http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all
"The Future of Nuclear Power" http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Nuclear won't be much more of a percentage of electricity generation than it is now.
Whether you consider that a small or large part is subjective,
but Oerdin is wrong - it won't come close to being the majority of electricity generation.