News | Editorial | Arts & Events | Satire 

TVA to Finish Second Nuclear Reactor at Watt’s Bar

Author: David Morton
Filed Under: News
Published: November 18th, 2008

Friday, the local chapter of the American Nuclear Society hosted a luncheon to discuss completion of a second nuclear reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Facility near Spring City. From the Times Free Press:

Bechtel and other TVA contractors working on finishing the $2.5 billion completion of the Unit 2 reactor at the Watts Bar nuclear plant plan to employ more than 2,300 construction workers by the end of 2009. The TVA reactor will be the first U.S. nuclear unit completed since the unit 1 reactor at Watts Bar was completed in 1996.

Completion of the Unit 2 reactor was suspended in 1998 because of reduced power demand. With the rapid rise in coal prices, a second reactor could produce an additional 1100 Megawatts of electricity for TVA cheaper than coal.

Nuclear power poses a Catch-22 for environmentalists. On one hand, it is virtually free of CO2 emissions. But many take issue with the high volume of radioactive waste produced.

Managing nuclear waste remains a high-risk and cost-prohibitive enterprise, but several burgeoning technologies aim to solve some of the inherent problems of nuclear storage and transmutation.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • TwitThis
Tags: , , ,

Please review the Chattarati Comments Policy before posting.

Comments
  • Phil
    Dave, please define "the high volume of radioactive waste" relative to what? Please also define "managing nuclear waste remains a high risk enterprise" relative to what? Managing coal waste which kills tens of thousands annually. Nuclear spent fuel kills none. Cost prohibitive?? Relative to what? Please give us facts to back up your misleading generalities.
  • High volume of radioactive waste - the byproduct of nuclear fission, which happens to be a little on the toxic side. I wouldn't want to drink it at least. Oh, and that's relative to every other form of energy production that doesn't produce radioactive waste: wind, hydro, coal, natural gas, solar, oil -- everything really. If there is an exception to that claim, it's a little on the marginal side.


    High risk & cost-prohibitive - You'll have to forgive me here, because I was writing under the assumption that managing nuclear waste is neither cheap nor risk-free. If you have information to the contrary, I'm certainly open to it.

    But on your last point, I take offense. As a blogger I have no responsibility towards the truth or backing up my claims. You're probably thinking of journalism. I admit it's probably difficult to discern the difference in this day and age. That's certainly not your fault, but it's not mine either. And I refuse to be held to the higher standards of journalism when making shit up is so much easier and enjoyable.
blog comments powered by Disqus