Skip to main content

At The North Anna Public Meeting

Last night I drove to Louisa County, Virginia to attend an NRC Public Meeting concerning Dominion Virginia Power's application for an Early Site Permit to add two new reactors at the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant in Mineral. Click here for some photos from last night.

In particular, the meeting dealt with the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the ESP, giving the community an opportunity to listen to the NRC's reasoning behind their findings, ask questions, and add their own statements to the record. Click here for coverage from the Fredericksburg Freelance-Star and here for coverage from the Richmond Times Dispatch.

Although the published accounts mention that 200 folks were in attendance, it probably should have also noted that there were hardly any empty seats in the school's auditorium once the meeting got underway, and that it was still more than half-full more than 2.5 hours after it began. I'll have more highlights later today.

UPDATE: Thanks to our pal Kelly Taylor for pointing to a report from the local NBC affiliate in Charlottesville. Click here for video.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
What gets me about the opponents of the North Anna power plant is that they do not take their claims through to their logical conclusion. If the North Anna plant were to decommissioned and the site restored to its original state, the lake would have to be dismantled as it was formed specifically to provide cooling water for the plant. I would have thought the Sierra Club in particular would be in favor of demolishing the lake and returning the river to its natural flow. Personally I think the benefits of providing massive amounts of electricity without polluting the air to be of such great benefit that it outweighs the cost of damming the river and changing the aquatic environment.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…