Nuclear Power in Georgia: A Closer Look at Plant Vogtle
Join the forum discussion on this post
The following article is provided by UNC’s Powering A Nation journalism team.
Our focus on emerging energy issues has carried us to Burke County, Ga., a sparsely populated community of more than 22,000, located 25 miles south of Augusta. Burke County now finds itself at the center of the Obama administration’s emphasis on nuclear power as a viable answer to America’s energy predicament.
Georgia Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, provides 15 percent of Georgia's power through Plant Vogtle. Plant Vogtle will be the first nuclear license to be issued in 30 years if granted a license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and it will be the only site in the U.S. with four reactors. Photo by Lauren Frohne
President Obama announced in February that Southern Company would receive $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to build the nation’s first nuclear reactors in 30 years. Plant Vogtle already houses two nuclear reactors. Unit 1 went online in 1987, and Unit 2 went online in 1989.
The current project serves as a $14 billion capital investment in Georgia and promises to bring more than 3,500 construction jobs and more than 800 permanent jobs.
The twin cooling towers stand 548 feet high, roughly equal to a 55-story building and taller than the Statue of Liberty (456 feet). Photo by Jessey Dearing
Construction on Plant Vogtle’s site began in April 2009 and is projected to last until 2017. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants a Combined Construction and Operating License in late 2011 or early 2012 as expected, the project will bring Unit 3 online in 2016 and Unit 4 online in 2017.
Mike McCracken, spokesman for Southern Nuclear Public Affairs, said Plant Vogtle would be the only nuclear power plant in the U.S. with four reactors.
We did find some individuals in the Burke County community who seem skeptical of bringing more nuclear reactors close to their community. They expressed concern at how much of the land where they used to roam without worry—Plant Vogtle has a 3,100 acre site along the Savannah River–is now surrounded by “No Trespassing” signs. They lamented the fact that they could no longer fish in the Savannah River for fear of pollution. And they used the recent oil spill in the Gulf to discuss the uncertainty of what happens if there is an accident at Plant Vogtle.
Despite those concerns, George DeLoach, the mayor of Waynesboro, Burke County’s seat, said that in an economic downturn, the construction of the two nuclear reactors means money for the county. Already, the plant provides 70 percent, or $25 million, of the county’s tax base. DeLoach said Units 3 and 4 could mean a doubling of that amount to between $50 and $60 million.
And, DeLoach says, the jobs that are coming to Burke County help quell consternation a resident may currently hold. “Because of the economic situation that we’re in now, jobs mean more to them than the environment,” he said. “Everybody wants a good job.”
How dangerous are the towers?
Plant Vogtle's twin cooling towers stand on Southern Company's 3,000 acres of land in Burke County, Georgia. In the foreground, land has been cleared for the construction of Vogtle's two new reactors and cooling towers. Photo by Lauren Frohne
Cooling towers are an iconic symbol of nuclear energy. Visible from a dozen or more miles away, they are, for some, the representation of an unwanted neighbor; for others, they’re beacons of a clean energy future.
Despite the cooling tower’s intrusive appearance, it is probably the most benign part of a nuclear power plant, based on what we recently learned during a tour of Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia. The towers can appear daunting, but when it comes down to that part of the nuclear energy process, it’s nothing but water.
Facts about cooling towers:
- Nuclear reactions do not occur in the cooling towers.
- The actual reactor is typically enclosed in a cement building that is built to withstand natural disasters and other threats.
- They are not just used for nuclear power plants.
- Many coal plants and other industrial facilities that boil water and use steam to turn a turbine use them to cool water before releasing it into the lake or river from which it came.
- There are nuclear power plants that do not use cooling towers, but instead utilize other methods for cooling water vapor into liquid.
- The substance that billows out of the top of a cooling tower is just water in the form of vapor.
- The water that is released never comes in contact with any radioactive material. At Plant Vogtle, that water is brought into the plant from the Savannah River through pipes. It is used to cool down the steam that turns the turbine so it can condense and be used in the process again. Because of the high temperatures, some of the river water is released as steam, while the rest flows back into the river.
- One cooling tower at Plant Vogtle consumes about 15,000 gallons of water per minute.
- Between the two, that’s 43.2 million gallons per day.
- With the addition of two more towers to accommodate the two new reactors they have planned, the plant will use 86.4 million gallons of water a day.
- According to Plant Vogtle’s website, their current reactors use “1 percent of the average annual flow of the Savannah River. Adding two additional units at the site would increase that amount to 2 percent.”
Two cement domes enclose the nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle. Radioactive materials and waste are housed in the domes and conjoined buildings. At its narrowest part, the cement dome is three feet thick. Some parts of the dome are as thick as nine feet. Photo by Lauren Frohne
Though the cooling tower is relatively gentle in nature, it is capable of interrupting even the most picturesque landscape. For Jessey, Chris and me, this was our first time beholding one at such close proximity. The photographers in the group that visited Burke County had fun juxtaposing the towers with the beautiful scenery we found there.
Predominantly rural, Burke County is one of the largest counties in Georgia in terms of square miles, but it has a population of only about 24,000. Photo by Lauren Frohne
Written by Chris Saunders and Lauren Frohne under the auspicies of UNC’s Powering A Nation and shared with Consumer Energy Report.
You have to be a little bit careful making lakes out of old mines, as the walls have a habit of collapsing occasionally. A town in Australia did this, and a wall collapsed (underwater) while people were boating on it, and the disturbances sucked a boat under and two people died. So, you need to make sure the slopes are made safe first. Other than that, I agree, it;s a good idea.
Of course, of you want to get get really creative, you could do something like this:
(a rehabilitated quarry and cement works site in Victoria, BC, now the world famous Butchart Gardens)
Here is an article about how a new nuke in China is handling water issues.
http://www.world-nuclear-news……06101.html
“A desalination system to produce 10,000 cubic metres of potable water per day could be installed at Hongyanhe nuclear power plant to help meet operation and living needs, CGNPC said.”
.
One of the indicators of good management is using a little imagination to make the area around the power plant an asset to the community.
Butchart Gardens is an example. It is one of the places I went as a child and have taken my children. A must see when visiting the PNW. The utility that makes my electricity has worked with a local zoo to turn an old coal strip mine into a ‘safari’ style zoo in Ohio.
Paul: An important point has been left out about larger turbines. The industry rule of thumb is to put 5 times the diameter of the turbine between towers. This keeps neighboring turbines out of each other’s “wind shadow”. Power generated per land area = power per turbine/ land area per turbine. Diameter squared appears in the numerator and denominator. Only wind speed (which increases with tower height) determines the amount of power produced not the size of the turbine. It’s like collecting water in your backyard by filling it with 20 gallon buckets or a swimming pool. The amount of water collected is the same. The turbine size and tower height chosen for a wind farm comes down to $/kw. Bigger turbines are built because they can get stronger winds at higher heights and they’re economies of scale outweigh cheaper more numerous turbines.
I think wind power should be expanded because it has the lowest environmental effects of anything available (sorry birds). We need all the power we can get, however wind can only be a role player in our energy portfolio. It is a good match with EVs because you can have smart chargers that pull when supply is elevated. This cuts down on energy storage considerations. Lets say we have 5 million EVs by 2020 each with a 30 kwh battery, that’s a lot of variable demand. Also the owners of these vehicles may value zero carbon electricity more than the average user. Power transmission is going to have to be expanded in all cases. Plants of all types have a hard time getting sited near population centers. PV Solar is becoming a good option for offsetting peak summer demand in most places. They peak right as the A/C switches on. Nuclear could throttle up and down but I don’t think the public is ready for that.
Well, yes, but with all the existing off peak capacity we can handle EV’s without needing wind, or new transmission lines (though it will need more fuel).
A much better option is reducing such demand for A/C in the first place, there is much that can be done there. BUt PV is not an economic, large scale solution, either in utility plants or on rooftops. It is fine for those who want to pay much more, though presently they are being subsidised by everyone else to do so. For a fraction of the cost of a PV system, you could build a ventilated “shade roof” over the real roof, and you would cut down the the A/C demands dramatically.
if people had to pay the true cost f the PV’s there would be a lot less of the being installed. If we have a real TOU pricing system, and PV’s are economic, then fine, but they have a hell of a long way to go before they constitute any meaningful part of peak generation capacity.
And I am not sold on “we need all the power we can get”. There is no electricity shortage today, there is a shortage of liquid fuels. Almost every successful renewable energy system produces electricity (except ethanol and biodiesel, and the jury is still out whether these are “successful”), and we are not short of it, or pof the various fuels to make it.
That said, I think we can still work to reduce our usage, or at least make the most out of what we do use. A resource not wasted can then be put to more productive use. Save enough electricity and you can open an aluminium smelter, or steel recycling mill, etc. Presently. much of this sort of production is moving overseas.
For wind, I always come back to solving the storage problem and/or finding opportunistic loads that customers are willing and able to shift to off peak. EV’s as a “load” don;t exist yet, and won;t be a “big”load for some time, so we need to find something else. There is a huge opportunity there, for someone…
Paul: “All the energy we can get” is in the context that there is political will (in states like CA) behind “cleaner” sources of energy. We could simply build coal power plants to deal with the expected 35% increase in demand over the next 25 years, but in order to reach environmental goals we need all the “clean” energy we can get.
Agree totally that best payback comes from conservation. The cheapest power plant is the one you don’t have to build. In Japan there are heat pumps that get in the upper 40’s in efficiency. We should be moving in that direction here for A/C.
@ Thomas – What heat pumps are you refering to?
Well, California’s version of clean energy, other than rooftop solar, is to buy it from someone else. Anyone trying to build anything, like a a wind farm or solar plant in the Mojave, gets tied up in red tape and lawsuits, and eventually decide to relocate their project to Texas where they just “get ‘er done”. I am not sure there is that much political will in Ca to change this approach anytime soon.
Russ, I think he is referring to the CO2 heat pumps, like the Eco Cute
They have a heating COP of 3 to 3.8 which is as good as the best refridgerant type ones, like the Fujitsu
Don;t know what the 40% efficiency means though.
of course, if the houses were built smarter and smaller to start with, this wouldn’t be a problem…
Hi Paul – What I have seen on the CO2 based heat pumps (Eco Cute) the COP is lower than a new high efficiency heat pump using R410A – or else I am remembering wrong.Have to look back through the data sheets I have stored (hidden) somewhere on the drive.
The Eco Cute big advantage is that they stay efficient at lower ambient temperatures meaning they are a good solution farther north than the conventoinal type.
Smaller houses or houses built well insulated and so you can heat or cool whatever portion you want.
The past couple of days it would have been more comfortable at night with the AC on but we didn’t use it last year and I don’t expect to this year either – lows at 25 deg C.
Air-source heat pumps. A refrigerator is built on the same principle. The most efficient ones are made by companies like Mitsubishi and Fujitsu . I misspoke about efficiency, the energy savings could be in the 40% range. It can heat and cool. The heating side of the equation is where it really shines b/c any type of combustion heat maxes out at 100%. While a heat pump can be anywhere from 300% to 600% (the coefficient of performance). This comes at a higher cost up front cost, of course, and extremely cold climates are not compatible.
Paul: You make my point about population centers and power plants with California. Transmission lines along with a smarter grid will have to “import” energy into them from the boonies. Southern California Edison, however, does have in-state plans to build the largest solar and wind installations in the country. We’ll see if it happens.
A new home built today uses much less energy and is more comfortable than a house built 20 years ago. Given the right incentives, some political will, and realistic expectations we can have big foot lifestyles with ballerina energy foot prints.
Thomas said:
Air source heat pumps/inverters – that is what I have in my new house – an efficient ASHP should have a COP of 3.5 – good for both heating and cooling.
That means that if the electricity bill for resistance heating was 100 USD then the heat pump bill would be 29 USD – as the COP increases the cost savings affect reduces – as in a COP of 4 gives a bill of 25 USD.
The upfront cost, for an ASHP, is not much different. For a GSHP (ground source heat pump) the upfront costs are significantly more and the increase in COP is not much – maybe 4 or 4.5.
The Eco Cute units (CO2 based) are efficient to a lower ambient temperature but I don’t remember their limits offhand.
We are getting a bit off topic here, but those Eco Cute units are good to -20C. As a refridgerator they are not quite as efficient as R410A, but as a heat pump, they are better, and at lower temps, which is when they are needed most.
I think the biggest advantage is that they can be air source, and in small units, and avoid the ridiculous cost of doing ground source, especially as a retrofit.
@Thomas;
I have to diasgree here, because this leads to viewing the bigfoot lifestyle as a “right”, as epitomnised by Dick Cheney’s “the American way of life is not negotiable”
Australia does not have such a big foot, but has just as good a quality of life, as does Sweden, Finland, Switzerland etc.
Al Gore claimed his 6000sq.ft house was OK because he ran it on green energy. But just because the energy is green, does that make it OK to waste it. Same applies to an SUV on ethanol.
I think the downsizing will happen, because the younger generation are rejecting supersizing. They (mostly) regard an iphone as more important than a car. Conspicuous consumption (of anything other than cell minutes and text messages) is out, often not by choice,.
We will not see them buying the large houses in the exurbs unless they have no other choice.
Kit, I know you got the memo because I saw you whining about it on the other blog. Just so we are clear here – you can’t post here – anywhere – for the next week. Complain more and I will extend. I am not going to tolerate you slandering me here or anywhere. As I have said before, you are entitled to your own opinions and you are free to debate facts. What you aren’t entitlted to do is make personal attacks, and you don’t get a free pass just because you did it somewhere else. Especially bad is the fact that you continue to lie and say I don’t produce anything. So for trying to smear me – and lying to do so – you shall accept the consequences. You want to start complaining about that and it gets worse from there.
You have been given a lot of rope with which to hang yourself. Probably far more than most people would have allowed you. But sooner or later you were going to do just that, because that is who you are. Further posts over the next week will be deleted without additional comment. Think about it next time you take your clown show on the road.
RR
@ Robert – You are a saint for patience – no one in the world has more!