http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/0...since-1978

Good news.

This is good news.

(02-09-2012 01:29 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/0...since-1978

Good news.

So you guys aren't bitching about the government loan they recieved from Obama?

(02-09-2012 02:08 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-09-2012 01:29 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/0...since-1978

Good news.

So you guys aren't bitching about the government loan they recieved from Obama?

No. This ain't pie-in-the-sky technology.

(02-09-2012 02:08 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-09-2012 01:29 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/0...since-1978

Good news.

So you guys aren't bitching about the government loan they recieved from Obama?

I'll add that too my list. It'll get a bit higher up when Obama and the Fed stop spreading the firehose of near 0% interest money at any megabank who even briefly considers it.

It's notable that Harry Reid's boy - Gregory Jackzo - was the lone dissenting vote on this approval. Jackzo continues his mission of trying to destroy the industry sector he was appointed to "regulate". Jackzo's stated rationale appears to be his concern that a Tsunami would hit Augusta, Georgia.

In the larger view, this approval is likely to be a "one of" event.

Nuclear Reactor Approved in U.S. for First Time Since 1978: Scientific American

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...8-approved Wrote:But what were initially lauded as the first reactors of a nuclear renaissance when proposed are more likely to be the exceptions that prove the rule of no new nuclear construction in the U.S. Only this twin set of reactors in Georgia, another pair in South Carolina and the completion of an old reactor in Tennessee are likely to be built in the U.S. for at least the next decade. "We won't build large numbers of new nuclear plants in the U.S. in the near term," says Marvin Fertel, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group for the nuclear industry.

But in the U.S., even just to maintain the current fleet of 104 reactors, which provide 20 percent of the nation's electricity supply, would require building as many replacement reactors by 2030. In fact, nuclear power production may shrink in the U.S. before it grows. Aging reactors, even with life extensions of another two decades, will begin to drop off the grid in coming years. "Twenty years is the blink of an eye for 100 gigawatts. The time is now to begin to deploy new nuclear," says David Christian, CEO of Virginia-based utility Dominion Generation, although his company has no plans to do so before the end of the decade. "We're in danger of missing that window."

Note that South Texas already abandoned their plans in wake of the post-Tsunami hysteria.

For various reasons, including economics and time-to-market, smaller reactor designs are probably the way to go forward.

This design is notable because it should be walk-away-safe (meaning that survivors of the zombie apocalypse won't have to worry about these reactors).

(02-10-2012 11:00 AM)I45owl Wrote:  This design is notable because it should be walk-away-safe (meaning that survivors of the zombie apocalypse won't have to worry about these reactors).

So what you're saying is that these won't serve to trap zombies and burn them up w/ radiation.

(02-10-2012 12:47 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-10-2012 11:00 AM)I45owl Wrote:  This design is notable because it should be walk-away-safe (meaning that survivors of the zombie apocalypse won't have to worry about these reactors).

So what you're saying is that these won't serve to trap zombies and burn them up w/ radiation.

You 2 would know all about zombies.