this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
1465 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59135 readers
6622 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] giddy@aussie.zone 28 points 1 year ago (16 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.

[–] problembasedperson@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year 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.

[–] paintbucketholder@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (3 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.

[–] icydefiance@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year 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.

[–] n00dl3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year 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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Or even less if we -- gasp, shock, horror! -- reprocessed it.

(We don't do that because of overblown fears about nuclear weapons proliferation.)

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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'.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 7 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/UC_BCz0pzMw

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Renewables and nuclear play different sports.

Renewables are better for most of our needs but there is a backbone need of base power. Nuclear is an expensive but clean way to provide that.

[–] AgentOrange@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

By my very very very rough calculations, you could build a large scale solar farm with 3x power output and have enough money left over to build a 33GWh battery. That would more than cover a continuous supply of 1GW.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Absolutely, and we should. We should have both. Nuclear has a very long lifespan and very consistent power. Ideal battery setups do to buy long term lithium battery storage is less of a thing, but it's growing. There are some other battery techs that use other chemistries which are also attractive.

Multiple eggs in multiple baskets.

[–] Kyrrrr11@lib.lgbt 2 points 1 year ago

Not the guy you responded to but I totally agree. Plus I think countries like Canada, with lots of snow and less direct sunlight, would appreciate an energy source they can rely on in the winter

[–] homesnatch@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago

Unless there are a few cloudy days in a row... My panels produce a lot less than normal during cloudy days.

[–] UnPassive@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Remember that blanketing the world with solar panels isn't exactly great for the environment. Rooftops makes a lot of sense, but the cost goes way up, an maintenance becomes a nightmare. The footprint of nuclear is much smaller

[–] ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The footprint of solar is significant, but still nothing compared to agriculture. E.g. The area used to grow corn to make ethanol in the US is ~ 3x what you'd need to fully power the US on solar.

~96000000 acres used for corn, ~40% of that is used for ethanol. That makes 38.3e6 acres. First estimate I found for area of solar panels to fully power the US on solar alone was 14.08e6. That makes corn for ethanol 2.7 times the area of solar panels if all that was used was solar.

[–] UnPassive@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah agriculture isn't great for the environment either, but that doesn't actually make solar any better

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

or we could do both

Also I would like to see the enviromental impact of building your 33GWh battery.

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What price per kw generation are you using?

[–] Waryle@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (7 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.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Except those reactors are off 30-50% of the time due to shoddy construction, €1.5/W in 2023 money is pure fiction, and overnight costs with free capital aren't real costs once you adjust for inflation and stop cherry picking the first reactors before negative learning rates kicked in.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Base load my friend. We also need steady, reliable, clean power when it's dark and calm. Until we can accomplish seasonal grid storage of renewables, this is the less expensive option.

[–] giddy@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

There are plenty of firming options (battery, pumped hydro, flywheels etc) which deliver reliability for a fraction of the price of this boondoggle. Not to mention a diverse portfolio of renewable technologies spread over a large geographical area is actually quite stable. When the sun isn't shining in one area, the wind may be blowing or the sun shining in another area.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] tara@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There’s also a reliability element too. Nuclear can reliably output a given amount of energy, at the cost of being slow to alter. Many renewable sources have sporadic amounts of power throughout each day. Either is better than fossil fuels at least.

[–] giddy@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good point but that is not insurmountable. There are many ways to achieve predictability (batteries, hydro, tidal) that also come on stream much quicker than any nuclear plant.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Nuclear isn't entirely reliable though. During the big heatwave last year at least 1 and iirc at leat a few French reactors had to be shut down because the water levels in the rivers they were on were not high enough to get sufficient water to cool them. Which is a problem that's only going to get worse as climate change progresses.

[–] relic_@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's a limitation of the secondary power conversion side and is true for any power generation methodology that relies on steam generation. That said, there's alternatives to the traditional Rankine cycle that could be deployed without modifying the nuclear side of the plant.

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

I don't recall them being shut down (that would be a drastic step). They were forced to reduce output, though (making the energy more expensive).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The issue is that right now renewables energy don't reduce CO2 emissions by much. (Except for hydro)

Sure if we look at the energy produced it's very clean. The issue is intermittence. As a society we decided to continue using electrical equipment even when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. So we use fossil fuel to compensate and overall the electricity production still enjoy a lot of CO2. We could use batteries, but utility scale battery are not very developed yet.

Same issue with the price. Sure solar energy is very cheap, when it's sunny. But what if I want to turn on the light at night ? The solar panel are not producing, the wind is not blowing, price is irrelevant if I can't get power when I need it.

Nuclear can produce a reliable amount of energy all the time.

I hope we will see the development of utility scale energy storage because this is what we really need for the development of renewable energy.

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (7 children)

We don't necessarily have to use batteries. In mountainous regions we already have stations that use surplus power to pump water up a mountain and then drop it down to generate energy when needed. Its basically a potential energy battery. But this is usually location limited and more expensive to set up.

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago

Yes, Pump Storage Hydroelectricity is a great option for storage. It's not the most efficient but it allows to store massive amount of energy.

I think today it's the main utility scale storage solution in the world.

[–] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

There's also compressed air and flywheels for energy storage.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)