March 8 - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) today voted to approve an Early Site Permit (ESP) for Exelon Generation Company, LLC, the first to be approved under a new licensing process.
The ESP resolves with finality certain environmental, site suitability and emergency planning issues with regard to the possible construction and operation of a new nuclear plant next to the Clinton Power Station in Clinton, Ill. Exelon has not decided to move forward with building a new nuclear plant.
The 20-year permit allows Exelon to "bank" a site for a possible power plant; however, it does not authorize construction of a new plant. Should the company decide to build a power plant, it would need to apply for a combined operating license.
"This is the last major hurdle in the process. We are very pleased with how the early site permit process has progressed," said Marilyn Kray, Exelon Nuclear Vice President of Project Manager, who has led this effort for the company since it began in 2002. for the company since it began in 2002.
France gets a signifigant share of it's energy from nuclear power - hasn't the technology improved since 3 mile island to allow the United States to do the same thing?
Or are we going to hear more caterwauling from environmentalists who keep looking for alternitive energy sources but don't actually want to use any?
Posted by: SPCAndyJ | March 11, 2007 at 06:42 PM
We have the possibility now to leapfrog right over nuclear fission and go to something more advanced. Check this report. . .
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2584496
Why we aren't building this reactor, I have no idea. The potential is huge, and the cost of building a demonstration device would appear to be relatively small.
Posted by: Tony Belding | March 11, 2007 at 09:04 PM
French reactors are based on US designs. It should be noted that the other reactor at TMI is a very good performing plant and also very safe. Even though the core was destroyed at TMI, the public was protected from a release by multiple barriers.
New designs of reactors will contain larger masses of water, larger containments, and new instrumentation giving operators more time to react to any failure.
Posted by: Kit P. | March 12, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Re: Fusion reactor. There are several people claiming that they have either the design for a small scale fusion reactor, or that they have enough information to build a prototype if only there were some funds available. This blog had postings on some of them in the past.
Since the investment asked for is very modest, and the potential rewards are huge, you would think that private capital would line up for the opportunity. The fact that no risk taking venture capital firms will jump in, would indicate that these scientist couldn't make a compelling enough case.
Posted by: Enoch | March 12, 2007 at 04:05 PM
Why we aren't building this reactor, I have no idea.
Gosh, could it be because it probably won't actually work? Bussard is many orders of magnitude away from having demonstrated plasma and energy confinement needed for a real reactor. Proton-boron fusion is very difficult, much more difficult than D-T fusion.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | March 13, 2007 at 11:14 AM