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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 137 points 3 years ago (30 children)

Good news. Anything but fossil fuels at this point.

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • load more comments (30 replies)
    [–] 103 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Ooh a lot of people here seem very pro-nuclear-power. That's cool!

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 78 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 58 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 44 points 3 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 3 years ago (12 children)

    I highly, highly recommend the Oliver Stone documentary Nuclear Now from earlier this year. Completely changed my perspective. I had no idea that the oil industry was behind so much of the fear mongering around nuclear.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • load more comments (12 replies)
    [–] 40 points 3 years ago (19 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 years ago (34 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (7 children)

    Fusion and fission are quite different. A practical fusion reactor does not exist. It's outside our technological capability right now. Current fusion reactors are only experimental and can not maintain a reaction more than a small fraction of a second. The problem is plasma containment. If that can be solved, it would be possible to build a practical fusion reactor.

    The fuel for a working fusion reactor would likely be deuterium/tritium which is in effect unlimited since it can be extracted from seawater. Also the amount of fuel required is small because of the enormous amounts of energy produced in converting mass to energy. Fusion converts about 1% of mass to energy. Output would be that converted mass times the speed of light squared which is a very, very large number, in the neighborhood of consumed fuel mass times 10^15^.

    Fusion is far less toxic to to the environment. With deuterium/tritium fusion the waste product is helium. All of the particle radiation comes from neutrons which only require shielding. Once the kinetic energy of the particles is absorbed, it's gone. There's no fissile waste that lingers for some half life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (33 replies)
  • load more comments (18 replies)
    [–] 38 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Oh wow really? Hope it kicks off some good news for other plants in the future.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 74 points 3 years ago (46 children)

    The good news - it's online, generating clean power, and hopefully demonstrating the safety and benefits of modern nuclear plants.

    The bad news - it's $17B over budget (+120%) and 7 years behind schedule (+100%). Those kind of overages aren't super promising for investors, but perhaps there are enough lessons learned on this one that will help the next one sail a little smoother.

    Either way, good to see it can still be done in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • load more comments (46 replies)
  • [–] 34 points 3 years ago*

    Yeah, after literally bankrupting Westinghouse and costing us Georgians billions of dollars. I'm all for more nuclear power but this project was a colossal shitshow.

    Georgia also has some shiny new solar factories so I'm interested to see how deep into renewables we can get in the next decade.

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 3 years ago (31 children)

    14 years and 35 billion (combined with #4 which has not been finished) and didn't generate a single kWh in anger until now. Put the same investment into renewables and it would generate similar or greater energy and would start doing so within a year.

    The argument against nuclear now is not about safety. It is about money. Nuclear simply cannot compete without massive subsidies.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago (11 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (11 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 26 points 3 years ago (12 children)

    France was able to output 2 reactors per year at 1,5 billion of euros per 1000MW for more than 2 decades during the 70's to 90's. The whole French nuclear industry has cost around 130-150 billions between 1960 and 2010, including researches, build and maintenance of France's whole nuclear fleet.

    A 1000MW reactor, at current French electricity price and for a 80% capacity factor, generates 1,4 billion of euros worth of electricity per year, for a minimum of 60 years.

    Nuclear is not costly, and can absolutely compete by itself, if you don't sabotage it and plan it right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • load more comments (12 replies)
  • load more comments (27 replies)
    [–] 27 points 3 years ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 21 points 3 years ago

    Just in time for openheimer in IMAX!

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 18 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    what does built "from scratch" mean? Just a more emphatic way of saying "built?" Or that it wasn't repurposed out of some already built building?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 18 points 3 years ago

    I'm all for investing in other forms of energy beyond fossil fuels, this is good news to me.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago

    I'm just stoked that lemmy as a whole and I agree on. Go team.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 3 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.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›