First U.S. nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia::ATLANTA — A new reactor at a nuclear power plant in Georgia has entered commercial operation, becoming the first new American reactor built from scratch in decades.

    • @Yendor@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -22 years ago

      The reduced operating emissions take 10+ years to outweigh the enormous construction emissions of nuclear. (Compared to gas.)

        • @Yendor@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -12 years ago

          Sure. But do you think Nuclear reactors will still be cheaper than renewables + storage in the 2070s? Nuclear is far more expensive per kWh than renewables, and the cost of storage is falling fast.

          • @cryball@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Good question, that one can only speculate on. IMO it’s a two part question.

            First is that newly built nuclear plants are expensive. So the question depends on if we bite the bullet (build the reactor) today or in 2070. One built today will produce cheap power in 50 years.

            For example in Finland we have reactors from 1980, that make up the backbone of stable energy production in our country. Those are going to be kept online till the 2050s. I’d argue at that point the cost per kwh will be mostly dependent on maintenance and fuel, so relatively small.

            Wind and solar cannot reap the same benefits if you have to replace the plant every 20 years.

            Storage is a completely separate question that is not taken into account when new wind farms and such are being built. If one was to account for storage today, the cost of renewables would be much closer to that of other means of production.

            Also in the future, if storage costs keep falling due to billions of R&D money, similar effects could be achieved in nuclear via serial production and scale.

            EDIT: Just read you have studied this stuff for real. Then ignore most of what I said, as you might know better :D

    • @nottheengineer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -57
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Nuclear is still fossil fuel, just not combustion. But I agree, this is good news because it helps reduce coal and gas usage.

      Edit: I get it, I’m wrong. No need to repeat the same comments over and over.

    • @dangblingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -42 years ago

      The nuclear lobby is alive and well on social media. Never before has the internet apparently agreed on something so controversial with some of the most cookie cutter, copy and paste, AI generated comments on the subject I’ve ever seen.

      The talking points seem to gloss over the fact that nuclear storage always fails, meltdowns happen, and you still have to mine uranium out of the ground. It’s far from a clean source of energy.

      • @Anon819450514@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        It’s not the cleanest, but in term of CO2 and other toxics produced per Giga-Watts, it’s the best compromise.

        Fission is hopefully, coming in the next decades. Like the other guy said, anything but coal/petrol.

  • @grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    33
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    About damn time! As a Georgia Power ratepayer, I’ve only already been paying extra for it for what, around a decade now?

    • @MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      This encapsulates the public response to building nuclear. I guess that is why it is the first in decades.

      • @grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        To be clear, my comment isn’t “the public response to building nuclear;” it’s “the public response to corruptly financing nuclear on the backs of ratepayers while guaranteeing zero-risk profit for shareholders, despite incredible incompetence and cost overruns building the thing.”

        If you think that bullshit is inherent to building nuclear, I won’t dispute it, but I will say it makes you even more cynical than me!

        I would’ve had no problem with it at all if it weren’t a fucking scam to gouge me for somebody else’s profit.

  • @Coreidan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    312 years ago

    Whoa. Finally a state in the US that isn’t doing something completely ass backwards. We need more of this.

    • @Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      192 years ago

      It’s Georgia, though. This is a positive development but it barely begins to make up for how much other ass-backwards stuff there is.

      This is the state that elected Marjorie Taylor Greene, keep in mind.

      • @AssPennies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        102 years ago

        Hopefully Georgia steps up and sticks to their guns with prosecuting people who attempt to convince election officials “to find 11,780 votes”.

      • @jdsquared@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        92 years ago

        This is the state that brought you Biden in 2020. And two democratic senators. Granted there’s a lot of back ass districts here, but we’re working on it I promise.

  • @doggle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    252 years ago

    Oh, neat. My state did something not completely stupid. I’ve got some reservations about nuke power as opposed to renewable, but this is definitely better than continuing fossil fuels.

    • @killa44@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      142 years ago

      Fission and fusion reactors are really more like in-between renewable and non-renewable. Sure, it relies on materials that are finite, but there is way, way more of that material available in comparison to how much we need.

      Making this distinction is necessary to un-spook people who have gone along with the panic induced by bad media and lazy engineering of the past.

      • @schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        LWR fuel is incredibly limited without a massive fleet of breeders (and no breeder has ever run a full fuel cycle, nor has second generation MOX ever been used. First generation MOX is also incredibly polluting and expensive to produce).

        The industry is already on to tapping uranium ore sources that are less energy dense than coal, and this is to provide a few % of world energy for a handful of decades.

        • @Ryumast3r@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 years ago

          I’m spooked by the fact that you have no idea how the US enriches uranium, or the difference between a power pressurized water reactor and a fast “breeder” reactor (if you were thinking of plutonium) or a centrifuge.

          The US enriches uranium using a gas-centrifuge. The US also no longer recycles spent nuclear fuel, but France does.

        • Album
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 years ago

          Nuclear plants don’t enrich. Enrichment would happen without power plants. Bomb fuel and power fuel are not the same.

    • irotsoma
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      Too bad the energy companies essentially never dispose of the waste properly, because it’s too expensive if they want to give the huge bonuses to their CEOs and buyback thie stock. Even when doing it “properly” it’s basically just making it the problem of future generations once the concrete cracks.

      And to reprocess the waste and make it actually safe energy would mean no profit at all plus the tech doesn’t exist yet to actually build the reactors to reprocess the waste. I mean we understand the theory, but it would take at least a decade to engineer and build a prototype.

      Compare that to investing in battery tech which would have far reaching benefits. And combining that with renewables is much more profitable.

      • @fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        132 years ago

        Too bad the energy companies essentially never dispose of the waste properly

        To be fair, nuclear waste tends to be disposed of much more properly than coal waste.

        • irotsoma
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -62 years ago

          True, but still not anywhere near “clean” as it’s always marketed as.

            • irotsoma
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              How is solar, wind, or hydro not “clean”? The generating of the power, not the building of the facilities, building anything is never clean.

              • @dustojnikhummer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                People count material, fuel and ecological with nuclear as well, so why not count it with hydro, wind and solar? Concrete is concrete.

                • irotsoma
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  02 years ago

                  Because all technology will require that. If we want energy, we have to build stuff. But there’s no fuel to buy, generally much less ecological impact due to limited waste products since no fuel is being “burned”. And the building cost is one time and generally subsidized, and maintenance is considerably lower, not to mention labor since you don’t need nuclear specialists to run the day to day.

  • @paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    192 years ago

    “If you wish to make a nuclear reactor from scratch, you must first invent the universe”

  • @GreenCrush@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    182 years ago

    Very good news. Nuclear power simply has way more benefits over fossil fuels. Not to mention it’s statistically safer, despite what decades of anti-nuclear sentiment has taught the public.

  • @majormoron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    132 years ago

    Hey wow, it’s great to see we are still persuing this avenue for energy, I hate how stigmatized nuclear became (with some good reasons). Like any technology, we just rushed to using it without understanding the full consequences when shit goes wrong. Hopefully we’re better prepared now.

    • @fsmacolyte@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      It looks like it!

      Looks like the only completed Gen 3 nuclear reactors are in Asia, at Kashiwazaki (Japan), Kori (South Korea), Yangjiang, Fangchenggang, Tianwan (China), and Kudankulam (India).

      Edit: I missed the Gen III+ part of that Wikipedia page. The other currently operation or under construction Gen 3+ reactors are in Sanmen, Shidao Bay, Taishan (China), Novovoronezh II, Leningrad II, Kursk (Russia), Akkuyu (Turkey), Rooppur (Bangladesh).

    • @doggle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      Not sure, this isn’t super easy to research, but an identical reactor is being built along side this one, so if it is our only 3+ it hopefully won’t be for long

  • @Zink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    82 years ago

    This is awesome to see, but I wonder if an array of Small Modular Reactors would be the way to do it in the future. Nuclear is a fantastic and safe source of clean energy, so I hope it can compete better on the economic side.

    • @schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      SMR’s are even worse than the big ones. With no breeding and small, lower temperature steam generators they’d be undsr half as efficient as a traditional LWR. The fuel costs (which will only go up as the easy uranium is tapped out) alone would exceed the current all-in cost of renewables (which are still dropping rapidly).

      • @Zink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        Ah well, it figures they have a tradeoff like that. Maybe they’ll be limited to remote locations then.

        Like so many things, it will come down to cost. It’s fortunate that renewables are getting so much cheaper because we pretty much are betting on them by being so reluctant to expand nuclear. Hopefully batteries and other energy storage technologies keep advancing rapidly.

        • @schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          All thermal generation will cause direct global warming via waste heat if used to excess.

          Fossil fuels have an order of magnitude or two more thermal forcing via GHG, so it’s largely irrelevant there, but solar can produce a couple orders of magnitude more energy than the world uses now without significant land use. As such fusion (with the exception of p-B or He3 direct conversion with no steam engine which is a bit more scifi) hits thermal limits before solar hits land limits.

          Intuitively you can frame this as “a small fraction of the amount of sunlight that hits the planet is the amount of energy that changes the planet’s temperature” which is basically a tautology.