Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

https://www.santeecooper.com/committed- ... power.aspx

So after delays and cost overruns, two new nuke plants (that were to be the first new ones built in the US in many years) are not going to be completed

I'm sure the anti-nuke greens will be happy- except to make up the shortfall, SC is going to restart a previously closed coal plant

we are going in the opposite direction we should be


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If Jimmy Carter had only gone with his knowledge of nuclear energy, instead of the Democratic Parties wishes, these things wouldn't be happening.

A few weeks ago I talked with a guy who is a long-time employee at plant Vogtle in Georgia. He said it was going to be at the very earliest 2022 before the new reactor will start construction and he doesn't think it will actually ever get off the ground because of all the hurdles in the way.

I guess I shouldn't expect anything else when Solyndra and other green energy unicorn projects are getting tens of billions in free money and nuclear plants get loan guarantees.

BTW, this is maybe the most thorough takedown of anti-nuclear climate activism and cites a paper from PNAS showing renewable along aren't going to make the emissions reductions that scientific organizations say that we need.

Like I told you guys before, today's environmentalism is about feeling warm and fuzzy on the inside and not protecting the planet. Whatever is down the road, we're hitting it head on no matter who controls the white house and congress going forward.

Thanks Trump!


Beyond Stupid. Nuclear power is among the "Greenest" options available right now.

CID1990 wrote:https://www.santeecooper.com/committed- ... power.aspx

So after delays and cost overruns, two new nuke plants (that were to be the first new ones built in the US in many years) are not going to be completed

I'm sure the anti-nuke greens will be happy- except to make up the shortfall, SC is going to restart a previously closed coal plant

we are going in the opposite direction we should be

Coal is the FUTURE..!!!

Just skimmed the article, but did anti-Nuke greens shut the project down?

I have a feeling the "Santee Cooper Board of Directors" lean just a bit to the right...

The main excuse is the Westinghouse bankruptcy. The bankruptcy is a blessing for Santee Cooper because it gave them the excuse to shut the project down. Electric loads aren't growing in large part due to energy efficiency. Natural gas is cheap thanks to fracking. And subsidized wind drives energy prices negative at times. You can't shut a nuke plant off so you lose money if it's running when the prices go negative (see Illinois and their bailout program to keep nuke plants running).

Skjellyfetti wrote:Just skimmed the article, but did anti-Nuke greens shut the project down?

I have a feeling the "Santee Cooper Board of Directors" lean just a bit to the right...

It appears you just skimmed what I wrote, too.

HI54UNI wrote:The main excuse is the Westinghouse bankruptcy. The bankruptcy is a blessing for Santee Cooper because it gave them the excuse to shut the project down. Electric loads aren't growing in large part due to energy efficiency. Natural gas is cheap thanks to fracking. And subsidized wind drives energy prices negative at times. You can't shut a nuke plant off so you lose money if it's running when the prices go negative (see Illinois and their bailout program to keep nuke plants running).

What? You can't shut a nuke plant off? BS....how do they do maintenance?

AZGrizFan wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:The main excuse is the Westinghouse bankruptcy. The bankruptcy is a blessing for Santee Cooper because it gave them the excuse to shut the project down. Electric loads aren't growing in large part due to energy efficiency. Natural gas is cheap thanks to fracking. And subsidized wind drives energy prices negative at times. You can't shut a nuke plant off so you lose money if it's running when the prices go negative (see Illinois and their bailout program to keep nuke plants running).

What? You can't shut a nuke plant off? BS....how do they do maintenance?

You can shut it off to do maintenance but that is a long term, planned event and is very expensive to do. You can't say "it's going to be windy for the next 3 days and the market is going to be negative so let's shut it down for 3 days" like you can a gas plant and some coal plants.

Several years behind schedule and 75% over budget.

They act that's abnormal or something.

HI54UNI wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
What? You can't shut a nuke plant off? BS....how do they do maintenance?

You can shut it off to do maintenance but that is a long term, planned event and is very expensive to do. You can't say "it's going to be windy for the next 3 days and the market is going to be negative so let's shut it down for 3 days" like you can a gas plant and some coal plants.

Ok...I gotcha. On that I agree....even Naval reactors are quite the process to shut down....

AZGrizFan wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
You can shut it off to do maintenance but that is a long term, planned event and is very expensive to do. You can't say "it's going to be windy for the next 3 days and the market is going to be negative so let's shut it down for 3 days" like you can a gas plant and some coal plants.

Ok...I gotcha. On that I agree....even Naval reactors are quite the process to shut down....

You can't completely shut them down - you have to expend all their fuel.

While they are running, you can only control the speed of the reaction


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting article on the decision.

http://www.environmentalprogress.org/bi ... t-overruns

I agree with the decision to cancel solely based on cost. The only way that nuclear makes sense is if you want non-carbon based baseload. If you aren't worried about the CO2 issue natural gas is a much better choice.

CID1990 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Ok...I gotcha. On that I agree....even Naval reactors are quite the process to shut down....

You can't completely shut them down - you have to expend all their fuel.

While they are running, you can only control the speed of the reaction


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not true. They're effectively shut down if they don't reach critical mass of the nuclear reaction....yes, there might be the odd neutron being released, but it IS shut down when the rods are dropped.

AZGrizFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
You can't completely shut them down - you have to expend all their fuel.

While they are running, you can only control the speed of the reaction


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not true. They're effectively shut down if they don't reach critical mass of the nuclear reaction....yes, there might be the odd neutron being released, but it IS shut down when the rods are dropped.

Completely dropping the control rods doesn't stop the reaction completely. When they decommission reactors, it is after the last load of fuel has been expended - OR you have to cool the fuel for several years

technically speaking, nuclear fuel like uranium is reactive even at rest - the fission process is just an accelerated reaction


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HI54UNI wrote:Interesting article on the decision.

http://www.environmentalprogress.org/bi ... t-overruns

I agree with the decision to cancel solely based on cost. The only way that nuclear makes sense is if you want non-carbon based baseload. If you aren't worried about the CO2 issue natural gas is a much better choice.

How long will natural gas stay cheap? That's the question. Not sure how great it is long term for energy independence, and in terms of cutting emissions it's pretty much useless.

The big cost with nuclear is more the construction costs than operating costs. Like I said, we'd probably be a lot closer to real energy independence and CO2 emissions benchmarks if those tens of billions in free money that went to solar were given for construction projects.

CID1990 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Not true. They're effectively shut down if they don't reach critical mass of the nuclear reaction....yes, there might be the odd neutron being released, but it IS shut down when the rods are dropped.

Completely dropping the control rods doesn't stop the reaction completely. When they decommission reactors, it is after the last load of fuel has been expended - OR you have to cool the fuel for several years

technically speaking, nuclear fuel like uranium is reactive even at rest - the fission process is just an accelerated reaction

These ^ are the kinds of discussions that make me want to ask our Secretary of Energy Rick Perry
Just exactly what Jesus had to say about Nuclear Energy and how it effects the coming revelation



Our former Energy Secretary had a PhD in Physics
but didn't know much about our lord and savior or the End Days

Pwns wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:Interesting article on the decision.

http://www.environmentalprogress.org/bi ... t-overruns

I agree with the decision to cancel solely based on cost. The only way that nuclear makes sense is if you want non-carbon based baseload. If you aren't worried about the CO2 issue natural gas is a much better choice.

How long will natural gas stay cheap? That's the question. Not sure how great it is long term for energy independence, and in terms of cutting emissions it's pretty much useless.

The big cost with nuclear is more the construction costs than operating costs. Like I said, we'd probably be a lot closer to real energy independence and CO2 emissions benchmarks if those tens of billions in free money that went to solar were given for construction projects.

If natural gas replaces goal it cuts CO2 in half. The million dollar question is how long fracking is allowed. It if continues NG prices should be relatively inexpensive for awhile. A recent study said if fracking was banned tomorrow NG goes up to $13 vs. the $3.50 it is today. NG generation partnered with wind and sometimes solar is the most economical choice right now.

HI54UNI wrote:

Pwns wrote:
How long will natural gas stay cheap? That's the question. Not sure how great it is long term for energy independence, and in terms of cutting emissions it's pretty much useless.

The big cost with nuclear is more the construction costs than operating costs. Like I said, we'd probably be a lot closer to real energy independence and CO2 emissions benchmarks if those tens of billions in free money that went to solar were given for construction projects.

If natural gas replaces goal it cuts CO2 in half. The million dollar question is how long fracking is allowed. It if continues NG prices should be relatively inexpensive for awhile. A recent study said if fracking was banned tomorrow NG goes up to $13 vs. the $3.50 it is today. NG generation partnered with wind and sometimes solar is the most economical choice right now.

In other words, whatever is down the road, we're going to delay it.

And even if production is steady, somewhere down the road we'll have a donk president who will declare it dangerous and put restrictions on it and promise to replace the lost energy with solar roadways and unicorn farts.

CID1990 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Not true. They're effectively shut down if they don't reach critical mass of the nuclear reaction....yes, there might be the odd neutron being released, but it IS shut down when the rods are dropped.

Completely dropping the control rods doesn't stop the reaction completely. When they decommission reactors, it is after the last load of fuel has been expended - OR you have to cool the fuel for several years

technically speaking, nuclear fuel like uranium is reactive even at rest - the fission process is just an accelerated reaction


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID, I had 7+ years of nuclear power training while active duty Navy...again, there's always "stray reactions" going on but until the reaction chain reaches critical mass the reactor isn't really "on"...and they decommissioned the USS California just 4 years after completely refueling both reactors. I'm pretty sure that fuel (which lasts about 20 years) wasn't all used up...and yes you do have to keep it cool even when the rods are dropped because of the stray reactions occurring which generates residual heat....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pwns wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
If natural gas replaces goal it cuts CO2 in half. The million dollar question is how long fracking is allowed. It if continues NG prices should be relatively inexpensive for awhile. A recent study said if fracking was banned tomorrow NG goes up to $13 vs. the $3.50 it is today. NG generation partnered with wind and sometimes solar is the most economical choice right now.

In other words, whatever is down the road, we're going to delay it.

And even if production is steady, somewhere down the road we'll have a donk president who will declare it dangerous and put restrictions on it and promise to replace the lost energy with solar roadways and unicorn farts.

I don't disagree. As someone who works in the energy industry our nation's lack of an energy policy makes planning very difficult.....