Skip to main content

Building Up Vogtle 3 and 4

By
Georgia Power created this time lapse footage of Vogtle 3 and 4 construction (perhaps in ancient Rome based on the title treatment).



Very nice. But just for fun - and because this video reminded me of it - here is a 1901 film informally called Building Up and Demolishing the Star Theater. The demolishing is in time lapse forward motion and the building up is the same in reverse motion. it was produced and directed by F.S. Armitage for the American Biograph Co., later home to D.W. Griffith, and became part of the National Film Registry in 2002. As far as anyone has determined, it is the first film made entirely of stop motion footage. That makes Georgia Power's film the scion of an exceptionally long legacy.

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
I know it's not the politically correct thing for a pro-nuclear advocate to say, but it's just pain pathetic how slow nuclear construction in the US is. I also follow the Oil and Gas Industry, and the Sabine Pass LNG plant is as big a project as Vogtle just recently started. They have seemingly done as much construction there in the last three months as Vogtle has in three years. It takes the patience of a saint to watch nuclear construction because it's about as exciting as watching grass grow. It's not that the plants are any bigger or more complex, it's jsut the absurd level of regulation that kill the industry in this country. Vogtle basically sat on its ass for a year over concrete issues that in any other industry would have been resolved in a few days. Given the current state of the NRC I can't see where new nuclear construction can ever be cost competitive. The old plants which have been running for 40+ years have worked fine without these sort of absurd requirements during construction and so has all the other infrastructure in this country. The NRCs regulatory scheme "can't see the forest for the trees" as they cosntantly nitpick inane details while at the same time failing to regulate large safety lapses so long as those lapses lie outside of their somewhat arbitrarily picked designed basis accidents and risk analyses that only consider the "known unknowns" and never the "unknown unknowns".
July 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more