this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
71 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37720 readers
691 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 16 points 5 months ago (3 children)

So it's just a nuclear plant and has nothing to do with coal?

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

At first glance I thought it was reuseing the coal plants turbines, but looking though the article the only connection I can find is that it’s located several miles away and the only connection is that it plans to hire a hundred or so people from the coal plant it’s replacing and that Wyoming’s powder river basin is nearby and its associated highly automated low sulfur coal mines are in the vauge area.

All this to say, yes it has practically nothing to do with coal.

[–] Dempf@lemmy.zip 8 points 5 months ago

I wonder if it has to do with reusing the transmission lines from the coal plant.

[–] jjagaimo@lemmy.ca 11 points 5 months ago

Coal plant burns coal to heat water, makes steam, and the steam powers a turbine to produce electricity. A nuclear power plant uses nuclear fuel to heat water and produce steam similar to a coal plant. It may do this indirectly (e.g. second loop between the nuclear fuel and water loop to prevent the water becoming radioactive). This means that to build a nuclear plant you essentially need to build a coal plant, and then also the nuclear reactor and safety stuff, which makes them more expensive. Since coal plants are being turned off anyways, it might be more cost effective to just retrofit old coal plants so the only cost is the nuclear reactor side of things (plus any necessary maintenance and upgrades)

[–] Mythnubb@lemm.ee 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like it's replacing the neighboring coal power plant.

[–] vinniep@beehaw.org 7 points 5 months ago

I had to dig up some other sources for info, but this is the case. The new plant has nothing to do with coal, but it is being built to replace the power production and local power related jobs in that area.

Sources: