New North Anna (VA) reactor receives enviromental approval.

[Statistical]

Federal regulators say the addition of a third reactor at the North Anna Power Plant in Louisa County wouldn't have any environmental effects that would preclude issuing the project a license.

Dominion Power is seeking a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build and operate the proposed Unit 3 reactor.

The commission said Thursday that it has completed a final environmental impact statement for the project. A review of the reactor's design and a final safety evaluation report are expected to be completed in 2011.

The NRC already has approved an early site permit for the proposed reactor, which has drawn protests from environmental groups.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/ap/environmental-review-of-north-anna-plan-completed-89130707.html

This will likely be the first reactor to complete the COL process. The reason they are behind Georgia is because of reactor choice.

GA chose the AP1000 which already received design certification (January 2006).
VA chose the ESBWR which has not yet received design certification (estimated late 2011).



To begin construction requires both COL + Design certifications.

NRC time-line is here:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/north-anna/review-schedule.html

The only thing remaining (other than design cert of ESBWR) is public hearings.

For ESBWR Certification NRC has a lenitive date of Sept 2011
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr/review-schedule.html

So Dominion can begin breaking ground now and begin construction of reactor proper in late 2011.

[joshcryer]

1. It still won't reach criticality until, what, 2018?

[Statistical]

3. Dominion is saying it may not start construction until 2012 so that would be 2018 commercial power.

Even if they get license in 2011 they may begin construction in mid 2012.

Criticality may be late 2017 but usually it takes NRC about 6 months from criticality to approve synchronizing the reactor to the grid.

Dominion is trying to time demand. The AP1000 in GA are smaller output (1150MW). GA is building two (2300 MW total capacity) but they are staggered by 18 months so that gives them some flexibility. The ESBWR is a staggering 1520 MW of capacity. They are only building one reactor but it is much larger so timing becomes more important. When it goes online capacity of grid jumps by 1520MW which is a LOT of power.

A lot of money rides on getting timing right.
Too late and they need don't have sufficient capacity and need to import power from other providers at high cost.
Too early and they need to take other plants offline until demand grows.

[joshcryer]

6. Still, unfortunate that it will take so long, this is my main problem with nuclear power.

We need clean energy tomorrow. :/

Our deadline is 20 years. 10 to be safe.

[Statistical]

7. Well part of it is simply supply vs. demand and the eocnomics of paid plants (sunk costs)

Unless utilities are forced to phase out coal they won't build new generation until there is demand or plants reach end-of-life.

This doesn't just apply to nuclear but all forms of emission free power. These new plants aren't shutting down productive coal plants. The new "clean" energy is simply soaking up new demand and replacing supply lost from plants reaching end of life.

The problem is there are hundreds of coal plants that are only 10-20 years old. They will last for 50+ years. So waiting for them to reach end of life is a problem.

Dominion could start in mid 2011 when it receives its COL & Design Cert. It actually could do about a years worth of prep work NOW (it has an early site permit) like they are doing in GA. Thus if you figure 5 years for construction with 1 months done prior to COL and rest starting in late 2011 the reactor "could" go critical in 2015.

However dominion has enough coal plants to handle power demand in short term. There is no need for reactor before 2018 so building it early has no economic value. They really don't need the plant until about 2022 but they want to give "first mover" bonus from Federal govt.

Our climate change preventing goals are put on back burner to our free-market capitalistic system.

One thing that would "nudge" things in the right direction would be a carbon tax. A carbon tax would make the oldest and dirtiest coal plants prohibitive to operate. If we had a carbon tax today likely Dominion would be doing early construction and planning to phase out a coal plant after reactor comes online.

Without a carbon tax "old coal" (coal plants where plant has already been built and paid for) will simply be operated for decades until they reach end of life. Emission free energy will only be replacing end of life plants and new demand not shutting down active plants.

[joshcryer]

8. This is why we need a carbon tax *now*.

I hadn't realized that they were taking their time due to lack of demand. That's just sad.

[Statistical]

9. Yeah it is sad. The "chunkiness" of nuclear energy only amplifies the problem.

With this reactor it is 0MW or 1520MW you can't build a quarter or half reactor. Nuclear power is not cost effective running at less than full load. It makes sense when you think about it. 90%+ of the lifetime cost comes from construction & interest. These costs are fixed regardless of the chosen output level of the plant. If you run at 50%, 70%, 90%, or 96% capacity factor it costs you EXACTLY the same each month.

In a natural gas plant the construction & interest is a small cost and operation (fuel) is very high cost. Thus a natural gas plant expenses are directly related to chosen output. There is some static overhead but it is relatively small.

This is one reason why nuclear reactors have such high capacity factor. They always output maximum power except for refueling, unplanned outages, and ramp up/down before and after outage.

Some reactors even achieve 101% capacity factor in years that refueling doesn't occur. (Most reactors replace 1/3 of fuel every 18-24 months). That is running at 100% capacity 24/7/365 with no downtime planned or unplanned. Longest ever streak of 100% capacity factor is just shy of two years.

The extra 1% comes from fuel variation and fact that it is difficult to get reactors to exactly 100%. NRC allows reactors to run at up to 102% of rated power.

[joshcryer]

2. BTW, I love the insane passive safety of this thing.

Probability of an incident is somewhere in the order of 1 in 300 million reactor years.

In scientific terms we say "highly fucking unlikely."

With or without the colorful language.

[phantom power]

4. Reactor will be re-absorbed into nearest subduction zone prior to equipment failure.

[Statistical]

5. Yeah they kinda over-engineer this think like no previous reactor.

If you notice in the diagram the reactor is suspended in containment building. There is this concrete basin below that.

This is a final, final, final passive safety system.
In case of a meltdown and core melts through the bottom of reactor. Normally that basin is empty but it is where coolant from emergency cooling drains to. Ironically we learned a lot about behavior of molten core outside reactor from Chernobyl.

That basin is designed to prevent the core from melting through concrete pad (30 feet thick) by cooling melted core to cause it to solidify.

This happened by coincidence in chernobyl so now modern designs incorporate behavior to contain molten core.

Of course no Western Reactor has ever rupture reactor vessel but in case it did this would be a final level of protection.