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
[–] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

And why is that exactly? Decay means the problem will solve itself, all we need to do is keep the waste away from the outside world until then.

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

    This would be a great solution if nuclear waste was a one-time non-reoccurring problem. More waste will be produced continually, and if more nuclear power plants are built to match energy demand, a lot more waste, multiple times more. Eventually we will run out of places to put it, and then of course also deal with the fact that every abandoned old mine or cave in the world is full of radioactive material.

    The closest "bury it in a hole" can come to a permanent solution is if the hole is on the moon or something. Even then there are downsides. Do you know how expensive it is to dig giant holes?

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

    You are vastly overestimating the amount of waste a reactor produces. Look up some figures on the internet. There is no way we will ever run out of space to put it.

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

    I have looked this up, thats why I already know this. You are underestimating how long nuclear waste lasts, and I would guess also underestimating just how many reactors we would need to meet power demands with nuclear as our main power source.

    Also never forget energy demand increases constantly, and the rate it increases also goes up.

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

    I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what people want to use nuclear power for. Nobody wants to power 100% of the planet with nuclear power indefinitely. It should only be used to replace fossil fuels as quickly as possible until we are able to fully satisfy our needs with renewables.

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

    I never said 100% of the power demand. I said most of the power demand. As of now nuclear is a smaller part of the energy produced, and making it a significant part of the path away from fossil fuels would be a wildly expensive, slow, emission filled endeavor, not to mention the nuclear waste. But, people with opinions like yours act like it is a magic power battery we have failed to plug in out of stupidity. There is nothing quick about nuclear. You want quick, you go with wind and solar.

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

    You could have just admitted that you don't know what I was proposing instead of making such strange assumptions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago

    So what is it you are proposing if I'm making "assumptions"? Some half measure that both isn't good enough AND wastes time, money, and space? Pound for pound nuclear isn't worth it except in specific places where wind AND solar are completely non-viable. It has it's place in those kindof places, but they will hardly make up a significant portion of energy demand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent