1598
First U.S. nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
395 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 34 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Renewables and nuclear are in the same team. It's true that nuclear requires a greater investment of money and time but the returns are greater than renewables. I recommend checking this video about the economics of nuclear energy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    That video completely ignores decommissioning costs for nuclear power plants and long-term nuclear waste storage costs in its calculation. Only in the levelized cost of electricity comparison does it show that nuclear is by far the most expensive way of generating electricity, and that it simply can't compete with renewables on cost.

    People love to look at nuclear power plants that are up and running and calculate electricity generation costs based just on operating costs - while ignoring construction costs, decommissioning costs, and waste disposal costs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    The cost of storing nuclear waste for a running plant is only a few hundred thousand a year; basically just just salary for a few people to transport it to a big hole in the ground.

    Decommissioning costs a few hundred million, which sounds like a lot, but for a project that lasts for decades it's basically nothing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    You could probably fit all of the nuclear waste America produces in few trucks. It's not as much as people think.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    The Department estimates that continued operation of the current fleet of nuclear power reactors could ~70,000 metric tons of uranium * increase the total inventory of spent fuel from 70,000 metric tons of uranium to 140,000 metric tons of uranium. Nearly all of this spent fuel is being stored at the reactor sites where it was generated, either submerged in pools of water (wet storage) or in shielded casks (dry storage). The Dept of Energy

    Those must be some big fucking trucks. And as far as I know, only Finland has actually developed any long-term storage which could be considered safe.

    Nuclear is fine, but nuclear fanboi takes are similar to weed fanbois, it's not a perfect solution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago

    You seem to think a big number means a big pile of green goo. But actually...

    All of the used fuel ever produced by the commercial nuclear industry since the late 1950s would cover a whole football field to a height of approximately 10 yards.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago*

    Here is the entire volume of high-level, long-lived waste that France needs to store over the long term for 80 years of nuclear power (with 70%+ nuclear power in its electricity mix).

    The question of nuclear waste, hammered home by the anti-nuclear crowd, has long since been answered. And the answer is: it's far from being a problem.

    As for the cost of storage and decommissioning, it makes no sense if we do not give a financial order of magnitude.

    At French current electricity price, a 915MW reactor will produce 1.1 billion euros of electricity over one year. A 1500MW reactor will produce 1.8 billion euros of electricity over one year.

    When you sell 60 billions of euros worth of electricity per year for 60 years, even if you pay 50 billions for storage and 2 billions to decommission an entire plant, it's still quite profitable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Estimated total cost of decommissioning in the UK is £120bn. But it's going to take 100 years to do it.. so yay lots of rotting radioactive buildings for the next century.

    The nuclear waste storage facility cost 53bn to build, let alone run.. so way off your 'few hundred thousand a year'.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Estimated total cost of decommissioning in the UK is £120bn.

    That's for way more than just one plant, and there's a lot more going on that resulted in such a high price tag. That isn't normal.

    The nuclear waste storage facility cost 53bn to build, let alone run

    It's a reinforced hole in the ground, designed to last a long, long time after humans forget it exists. Of course it cost money to build, but now it's just there. It doesn't cost anything for it to continue to exist. Maybe there's a little security or staff for some purpose, but I don't know what they would even do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    That’s for way more than just one plant, and there’s a lot more going on that resulted in such a high price tag. That isn’t normal.

    No, that's pretty normal. Current experience with decommissioning German nuclear power plants show that the cost is about $1.2 billion per power plant, and that decommissioning takes about 20 years.

    Of course it cost money to build, but now it’s just there.

    That doesn't mean you simply get to ignore the $53 billion it cost to dig that hole.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Does that video talk about how wind turbine blades aren't recyclable at all so they end up in landfills? Solar panels are 75% recyclable which is excellent but that still means 25% is going into the ground. Nuclear is the only way forward.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •