Here's a website listing nuclear facilities with some stats.
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist1.htm

and another
http://www.nukeworker.com/nuke_facilities/North_America/usa/NRC_Facilities/index.shtml

I'd suggest you try and contact a similar "small town" located close to a nuclear power plant and enquire as to the impact it has had on their enviroment , economy and community.

Regards Woody

No new nuclear power plants have been built in the US in many many years. The new ones are much smaller and have much better technology. It isn't possible to relate what happened to a town from 30 years ago to present to what might happen today.

Oh, I don't know; 2009 was not that long ago.

I am trying to understand just what you are really asking about... Do you wish to develop such a powerplant? Do you want someone else to do so? Is such a plant being proposed and the townfolk are resisting?

What information does the current local power provider have available? Do they have a position on whatever your quest is? How about the office of the Governor, do they have a dog in this fight?

The most recent plant I can find is from 1996, most are before 1986 and the technology has changed. The governor hates nuclear, but we have two year terms and one never knows. The people of Vernon, where VT Yankee is, are overwhelmingly supportive (67%-30%) and want the plant to remain open, even with current safety issues. We could "hide" one of these in our town, so I would like more info to see if I should support this on our development committee.

Wooops

I have no idea where 2009 came from... probably got it from my LynDoor™ Industries Lotto Number Generator.

You are correct; Watts Bar is the most recent plant online in USA.

The largest Nuclear Power Plant in the USA is Palo Verde #2 @ 1.3 + MW. Plants #1 & #3 are at the same site, and each exceeds 1.2 MW. Here is a partial list:

Palo Verde 2, Ariz. Arizona Nuclear Power Project 1,335 MW 1986

South Texas 1, Tex. STP Nuclear Operating Co. 1,280 1988

South Texas 2, Tex. STP Nuclear Operating Co. 1,280 1989

Grand Gulf 1, Miss. Entergy Nuclear 1,263 1985

Palo Verde 3, Ariz. Arizona Nuclear Power Project 1,247 1988

Palo Verde 1, Ariz. Arizona Nuclear Power Project 1,243 1986

Perry 1, Ohio FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. 1,235 1987

Byron 1, Ill. Exelon 1,194 1985 Braidwood 1, Ill. Exelon 1,185 1988

Braidwood 2, Ill. Exelon 1,177 1988

Wolf Creek, Kans. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 1,165 1985

Byron 2, Ill. Exelon 1,162 1987

Seabrook 1, N.H. North Atlantic Energy Service Corp. 1,159 1990

Vogtle 1 Ga. Southern Nuclear Operating Co. 1,152 1987

Sequoyah 1, Tenn. Tennessee Valley Authority 1,150 1981

Read more: Largest Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. - Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004790.html#ixzz1GDIFyFnL

Arcelor, France has a team of researchers in this field. Couldn't hurt getting their advice.

I am agree with Mill, the problem are recyle. Need some years to eliminate waste of nuclear. The procedure its complicated. Until now, there is no guarantee for reactor that would no possibility to leak. Nuclear give you the answer for you energy requirement but also give you other problem. why dont look any energy conservative???

Between 80-90% of spent nuclear fuel is recycled.

The major problem with nuclear waste in the US is the fact that the US government has legal bans on reprocessing the fuel. The amount of nuclear waste that actually has to be buried can be significantly reduced by reprocessing and recovering some of the unspent nuclear material. The problem is, the US Government is afraid that such reprocessing also produces plutonium, and they are afraid that such would get into the hands of those wanting to create nuclear bombs. Apparently, this is not nearly of such a concern in other dominions (Japan, for example, where reprocessing is actively being accomplished, and apparently no terrorists have been able to acquire enough fissile material to build their bomb yet...)

Yep, more ridiculous laws. If someone has enough money and the will to build a dirty nuke, I would think that there is plenty of material out there that can be had. Banning reprocessing in the US is not going to stop them.

Here is a list of power plants around the world that includes 260 Nuclear Plants. They are dated when you click on them along with some photos.

Regards JD.

I think Toshiba has or is working on a small type of packaged reactor.

That would be the Toshiba 4S, layman's introduction here. Which also includes a link to a description of the installation being planned for Galena, Alaska, here. If you can deal with wading through a maze of links, Toshiba also has some pretty good information on their web site- but I have lost my roadmap to their web site, and it is not for the feint of heart...

The Sandia Labs project and 30MW Hyperion's is generating interest globally indeed. http://www.powermag.com/issues/departments/global_monitor/The-Race-to-Commercialize-Mini-Nuclear-Reactors_1619.html I've broached this subject locally also and determined to sell the concept to those main business entities then move through the local gov

I have been sort of tracking the Hyperion developments also, but it seems the Toshiba S4 may be closer to commercial application. What's the latest on the licensing issues for the Hyperion? Any interest from the insiders in exporting?

As I understand it all of Sandia's near term sales are off shore.

I just visited the Hyperion site once more- lots of valuable information, but it looks like they are still a couple of years away from their first shipments.

Also, their idea of "small" needs some attention- there is a strong case to be made for 1MW or smaller reactors.

@$50,000,000 for a 70 MW plant. this is about half the cost of a coal-fired plant, and less even than a typical hydro-electric facility. About the only thing cheaper might be a fuel oil or natural gas plant. Of course, there are still the hidden costs associated with licensing and regulation...And a big concern with conventional facilities is always the cost of the real estate, which for the Hyperion or the Toshiba S4 would be minimal...

I also like the idea of shipping the entire unit home once the fuel is spent, rather than having to deal with spent fuel on a local basis...

Absolutely. And a strong case is to be made for much small reactors; I'd like to replace the battery in my car......

I have come to the same conclusion as you regarding the nature of people. In the face of overwhelming evidence, people tend to hold on to their archaic and unreasonable beliefs. I wonder if there is something in our DNA that has come to us by evolution in this regard. The hysteria surrounding nuclear energy astounds me. I am not completely sold, but am certainly willing to listen. There was recently a woman who used to protest everything about nuclear, but now has done a 180 and is a proponent. I have to respect that.

Ted

sloopster 3: She is probably coming to the end of her life.So why should she worry? It is just a matter of time before the big day.It is nothing to do with DNA,just simple logic. Solve the storage of the waiste and then I might join you and the old dear. UK Joe. Is this still hy-jacking a post? How else can I state my case?

Knowledge is a powerful thing. Good for her for looking into the facts.

I am afraid that with the recent event in Japan, a new nuclear powerplant will be an even harder sell to the American people, let alone your neighbors.

Why are there lots of 8.9's followed by tsunami's in vermont?

While Vermont does not appear to be 'Earthquake Central', it is not without a shake every now and again.

And, to my surprise, there is no Vermont tsunami page (that I can find).

As touched on during this discussion, it is often perception that rules the hand of the voting public. Those already opposed to nuclear power will simply entrench, the Japan event being their rally point, and disregard any thought of your valid comment.

Here's the most inflammatory question I can think of

Would you want your daughter work on the maintainance crew? ;D

By "layman working on development" do you mean you are employed by the city as a regular guy who is tasked with figuring out how to improve the economy? Or are you a resident trying to do the same?

Volunteer on development committee. I am a math teacher, but engineer at heart.

A nuclear reactor in a small town in VT?

Um, not to sound cynical, but this plan probably has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Maybe you could get Ben & Jerry's ice cream on board.

I may be thinking of another small town in another place, but didn't it take decades to convince these people that microwave ovens aren't nuclear powered? I'm pretty sure a lot of them are still convinced that microwave ovens spew out radiation that leads to birth defects, disease, etc...............You know, the same type that think that immunizations for kids are poison. They don't concern themselves with facts, only putting a stop to things that they perceive as dangerous.

I know these things because I have a younger brother that is one of these people.

The unfathomable depth of their ignorance, combined with the constant drumbeat of their big business, planet killer conspiracies is mind numbing.............in the meantime, they actually accomplish very little. But I'll bet you a dollar to a donut they'll find a way to derail your plan. Sorry.

Small town adoption of small nuclear plants is possible- review the link I provided earlier about Galena, Alaska. The biggest roadblock there appears to be federal licensing requirements...

Alaska isn't Vermont.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-calls-nuclear-power-vermont-hits-reverse/story?id=9925556

More

You got that right!

I was recently in a community meeting where a scrubber type sulphurization plant was to be built. The fact that this would remove a sellable product from already existing noxious fumes didn't quite make it into the brain of this community. Anybody that could vent their so-called eco-bolshevism did it so loudly that no discusion was possible. The unfortunate thing was that the men who called the meeting had to leave without stating their position.

It was these guys who I wanted to hear...........what I got was a compendium of crazy people whose only platform was their own need to shout....yes, it was all about 'them'.

Surf around in the following site:

http://www.areva.com/EN/mediacenter-57/page.html

Didn't mean to imply the old stuff was bad, but look at anything that is continuously produced and you always see gains in every aspect. From vynil records to the ipod, cars, refrigerators, maybe the toaster hasn't gained much ground, but I can get a bagel into my new toaster that I couldn't get into my old one.

The actuarial study is something I could really use. Do you have a source?

Thanks to all of you for your replies, I'll look into the Galena, AK project and the Hyperion and Toshiba projects.

Ted

Wow! Those are cute little plants.

I actually take my boat out and fish at this spot near my house. It's great in the winter because the water is warmer by the tower. The fish are more active. I don't have any worries. No mutants yet.

Believe it or not, I think it's the cooling towers that scare people more than anything.

The CANDU reactors generally get very high ratings within the industry- and their 42 month construction schedule beats the blazes out of the typical 10 year construction schedule for American designs...

The French have also accomplished a lot with standardized designs...

One of the big cost drivers in past nuclear power plant construction in the US was the "cost plus" type of contract, and the fact that the regulating industry would make frequent changes to the design...

By the time you guys finish refurbishing three could have been built from scratch.........oh , I forgot, McGinty went with wind power..........

I'm interested in nuclear, but what little I knew is now 40 years old! I have heard there is a design using fast neutrons and a liquid salt fuel that can actually use as fuel the spent fuel from present thermal neutron reactors. The waste is much less radioactive and has a much shorter half-life. The nuclear part could replace the coal burning part of fossil fuel plants, keeping the same electric generating part.

Is this system a fact, or is someone pulling my leg? Whatever you learn, I would be interested in hearing. I need to check the CANDU plants.

All bets off....earthquakes and tsunamis trump reason. I've dropped my idea and will now have to close this thread untill all radiation in Japan is below the level of that which we get from the sun.

This is tragic, especially considering the fact that out of the 10,000 or so estimated deaths from the recent tragedy, NOT ONE SINGLE DEATH has been attributed to the failed power plants. There have been, to date, only 15 injuries associated with the problems at the power plants, and these were workers injured in the explosions. Reportedly, only 189 people out of the tens of millions of people who could have been subjected to excessive radiation exposure have tested positive for such exposure (the details of these results, like how close to the reactors, when the exposure occurred, etc., have not been released in the news reports to which I have access). The US aircraft carrier that was "exposed" actually only registered higher than normal ambient radiation, but the level registered was reported as insufficient to cause immediate or future medical issues...

This is probably the worst-case scenario anyone could conceive, with multiple reactors rapidly approaching meltdown. These injury death statistics quite dramatically illustrate just how over-blown the concern over the safety of nuclear power actually is. Of course it could have been worse. But it wasn't, and that speaks volumes about the efficacy of the nuclear industry's ability to protect the public.

I still want my own personal mini nuke in the back yard (a Toshiba S4 or a Hyperion, if I can talk either of them in to building a small enough one).

Hi Charlie

I don't think I have any more sophisticated information than you but I have to disagree with your optimism. Not seeing things as they are but imagining the 'what could happen if' is the challenge at the moment, I think.

None of the sources available to me are reliable and in many cases contradict each other. The style of information flow reminds me of BP oil disaster, only this is potentially much worse. It is a huge blow to the suppliers and developers of these technologies and to educate the masses=politicians is going to be even harder in the future.

I like the idea of decentralized small units. Like having one in your backyard, the size of a bar fridge but a thousand times heavier. I have to read up on Toshiba S4 or a Hyperion to get a clearer picture. One has to be open to what other very smart, well financed engineers come up with when creating nuclear driven/powered technologies.

The fat lady has not sung yet. She is nowhere near the stage. Lets just hope that like with the Gulf spill a solution can be found. The worst thing for any engineer is when the machine, system, process takes over. This has happened and the reasons, causes are and where on the cards. This proves a clear underestimation of components, materials and construction.

Anything can happen at any time with any engineered product. Murphies Law is not called a law for nothing. Leaving the consequences of such a failure, catastrophe in the realm of speculation and head in the sand tactics is not the answer. A review of all existing plants will be on the cards and a lot more undereducated people will want answers.

Not looking good Mate, not looking good, Ky.

ky-

I agree with you. This tragic event needs to be studied from every angle to determine how things could be done better (like keeping these plants away from earthquake-prone areas- installing them along the west coast of Japan would have been far more sensible). But I also think that it is important to keep the tragedy in perspective (something that was NOT done with the BP blowout!). I suspect the long-term impact of greater import than the issues with the power plants is going to be how to provide for all the displaced people and destroyed lives.

The world has witnessed a far worse nuclear accident (Chernobyl), and it is interesting to contrast the differences between the two designs, and the differences in the training levels of the operators. While the Fat Lady has yet to sing, and one can not just walk away from the tragedy, I still feel we need to put it into perspective.

Especially since I am aware of one plant in particular in Southern California that faces an identical threat, sitting almost dead-center on an off-shoot of the San Andreas fault. Perhaps THAT plant should be decommissioned, but this should not be a call to abandon nuclear power all together...

http://www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs/185/Toshiba-nuclear-reactor-hoax.html

That's why I said in an earlier post, "if I can convince Toshiba or Hyperion to build a small enough reactor..." The original Hyperion hype (should we pay attention to the root of the name???) spoke of a "bath tub sized" reactor. What I see now would be about the right size for a Roman public bath, not something I would consider installing in my back yard...

I could probably sell a whole lot of nuclear reactors in the 300-500 kW range. No one seems interested in that market- so we are stuck with diesel for remote sites...

The anti nuke people will completely ignore the fact that thousands of bodies are washing up on shore due to an earthquake, and resulting tsunami. If one person dies from radiation poisoning, they will trumpet that persons death until the end of time, as a reason to never allow nuclear power anywhere.

These people do not use logic and reason to reach their conclusions.

"...installing them along the west coast of Japan would have been far more sensible"

Hind sight is 20-20. As I understand it from a recent article, the plants were built on the East coast of Japan to take advantage of winds blowing East in the event of a leak, the radiation would not blow across the country, but out to sea.

Hardly a preventive measure in this case.

Nuclear Power and a "dying little town" does not add up. According to my perception, Nuclear Power plant if built around this town are does not provide or open door for large scale employment/economical benefit's for the people living there who may not have the adequate expertise in this highly specialized area, therefore if you are trying to suggest something to them you could say that during the construction phase lot of employment opportunities could be availed but for a short period only. Subsidiary industries supporting are also highly specialized areas. Latest crisis in Japan can help you to put together the CON's of having a Nuke Stn next door. Regarding the technology, French who are the leads boast about their HPR's as safe and sound, the Americans have Westinghouse etc. tech which they too boast about high safety records, Japs who have Mitsubishi etc also do claim the same, Now in realistic world Nuke energy is not easy to control once things go wrong. So Benefits as I see are employment, some real-estate, the risks ..follow Japan crisis.

I am for Nuclear power, but in discussion with those against it, it seams to boil down to the waste problem. But we of this generation are passing on an inheritance, nuclear power and waste. The alternative is that carbon based energy resources are running down, so if we don't go nuclear, is that inheritance going to be poverty, and how many people do think will die when they rise up and rebel when harsh measures are imposed? Or do you think that governments will encourage develop of alternative energies by imposing a carbon tax? Or will people find a carbon tax so unpopular they rid themselves of any government proposing it? Or do we just carry as normal till the proverbial hits the fan.

Regards JD.

I am for Nuclear power, but in discussion with those against it, it seams to boil down to the waste problem.

I agree that we have to go with nuclear. To deal with the waste problem, we need to have reprocessing. The used fuel has lots of fissile material left in it, but the chain reaction is "poisoned" by the fission products. Radioactivity and the public's fear are problems.

Or have a reactor that can utilize the thermal neutron reactor used fuel. I have heard there is such a reactor (fast neutrons and liquid salt fuel) that can do this, but no one replies on whether I'm getting my leg pulled or there is such a thing!

we can have the high probability of a small risk to a large population [coal]

or a low probability of higher risk to small population [nuke]

& even within that there is going to be an even greater risk to the very much smaller numbers of workers who deal with the radioactive materials. even with remote handling techniques there will be incidents. There is more than the fuel itself that pose risk.

Here's a great article on it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=smarter-use-of-nuclear-waste

Thanks. Haven't read it yet, but it looks like the correct subject. By SA will add some weight.

never mind, wrong place for my post