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.

  • EuphoricPenguin@normalcity.life
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately, there’s still that one guy in the comments trying to say that hypothetical, largely unproven solutions are better for baseload than something that’s worked for decades.

    • Wren@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That or the fear-mongering talking points. That’s what caused our local power plant to be decommissioned, and now those same people are complaining about how much their electrics cost now.

      • szczuroarturo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The old soviet legacy. And a bit of actual disasters and from the 2 significant ones (hiroshima and chernobyl) half are beacuse of the soviets.

          • joel_feila@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            on a side notw how people have dies from fukushima in the years since and how many have died from coal? Also you can compare the number of long term health problems

            • cryball@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Doesn’t matter. Bad news at the time was enough to scare people for the next 30 years.

      • EuphoricPenguin@normalcity.life
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Heck, even my college Sociology textbook from OpenStax basically has nuclear fear-mongering baked into one of the later sections.

    • ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you mean renewables by that, it’s hardly hypothetical or unproven. I’m in Australia and south Australia and Tasmania (two of our states) have fully renewable grids, Tasmania for the past 7 years. South Australia does still occasionally pull from an interconnect but most of the time they’re exporting a bunch of power.

      Renewables with storage are cheaper and faster to build than nuclear and that’s from real world costs. Nuclear would be fine if it wasn’t so stupidly expensive.

      • tempest@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tasmania

        Generates nearly all its power using hydro electric, which is great but pretty dependent on geography.

        South Australia

        Wiki says a pretty big hunk of that is still gas

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_South_Australia#/media/File:Electricity_generation_SA_2015-2021.svg

        In Ontario Canada where I am from it would take > 4000 wind turbines all working at once (not including the batteries) to supplant our nuclear capacity. Even the largest battery storage are in the hundreds of mega watts and only for a few hours at the cost of about half a billion dollars.

        I think it is more productive to approach these technologies as complementary as any proper grid should have both for the near future if we want to reduce global warming.

        • ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ah sorry, my mistake on that one. Despite how many wind turbines working at once it may take, the power from the is cheaper by a long shot than nuclear.

          The reason I don’t think nuclear is the main solution is just cost + build time. It’s horrendously expensive. Much more so than the cost of renewables with proper grid integration (transmission, storage etc.) that has been modelled.

          Maybe in a while the small nuclear reactors may come close, but currently the full sized reactors are too expensive and smr’s aren’t really a thing yet because of cost.

          If power prices can come down instead of go up it’s going to be a lot easier to convince everyone to transition away from fossil fuels, and from modelling that’s been done (e.g. by csiro) that can be the reality

        • ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ah sorry, my mistake. I messed up there.

          The battery in SA is really just for grid stabilisation, not long term storage. Batteries are not really a good soln for longer duration storage. You need surprisingly little storage though when they’ve modelled fully renewable grids which is why the projected costs aren’t stupidly expensive.

          • ZodiacSF1969@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s interesting, I’m an EE but in industry atm. I’d like to look into that whole scenario one day and see how much storage we’d need to go fully renewable.

    • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you mean hypothetical technology that hasn’t been invented yet, but he expected will be in widespread use 50 years from now.