this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
1564 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

60048 readers
3026 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 2 years 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
[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 72 points 1 year ago (4 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.

[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What's the normal amount of over budget and behind schedule?

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ideally zero? But given this is the first US reactor in decades, it is by definition normal I suppose.

[–] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Those amounts there. For comparison for example another recent plant Olkiluoto 3 in Finland was 13 years late on a 5 year original construction timeline (18 years total construction time) and ~~10~~ 8 billion euros over budget on original budget of 3 billion euros. (Final estimate it cost constructor ~~13-14~~ 11 billion euros to build. Technically its fixed price contract so customer price is still 3 billion. However it did bankrupt the builder Areva and litigations are ongoing about, if the French can extract more money from he customer TVO)

So doubling the price budget and doubling the build time is not at all unreasonable first estimate on the announced numbers of the builder and customers at start of project.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, according to the story, power costs will go up as a result of this reactor coming online.

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

True, BUT the cost increase was relatively small (~$3.50/mo) - can't speak for everyone as I know people's budgets can be quite tight right now, but that's a price I'd be willing to pay for more nuclear on my grid.

[–] aksdb@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

I wouldn't call it "clean power". We still don't have a good solution for the nuclear waste.

Edit: Downvotes because I am not religiously defending a technology and pointing out that there are downsides (EVERYTHING HAS DOWNSIDES!). Too many people from reddit here already.

[–] cryball@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In finland we have this big hole that goes half a kilometer into stable bedrock. The storage solution is engineered to withstand the next ice age.

[–] DoomBot5@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's Finland, haven't you been in an ice age for the last 1000 years?

[–] cryball@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

I guess this is a joke, but regardless. The current climate is quite different from having an ice sheet 3km thick on the ground. This summer we were nearing 30°C/85°F on some days.

[–] dmmeyournudes@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Compared to the downsides of virtually every alternative energy source, the downsides of nuclear are peanuts.

[–] Cabrio@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Sure we do, put it in the holes we took the other stuff out of. Soon our whole planet will be nuclear powered.

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

Nuclear power plant waste doesn't significantly contribute to climate change or pollution? So it's "clean" by most metrics.

Nuclear waste can generally be stored on-site without issue. Reprocessing would be nice, but not even necessary. Just because you don't understand the problem, doesn't mean others are "religiously defending a technology."

[–] aksdb@feddit.de -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Coal was also considered clean in the beginning because they didn't have to sacrifice forests anymore.

We may not consider the waste a problem now, but that may very well look differently in 50 or 100 years.

Again: I am completely fine considering nuclear power as one of the best options we have. I am not so fine pretending it's without tradeoffs, because that would ignore how any other form of energy generation in the past/ever finally turned out.

[–] UnPassive@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Coal was also considered clean in the beginning because they didn’t have to sacrifice forests anymore.

False analogy fallacy

We may not consider the waste a problem now, but that may very well look differently in 50 or 100 years.

Argument from ignorance fallacy

I am not so fine pretending it’s without tradeoffs

No one is saying it's free energy or perfect energy. I myself would argue it's clean and solves some of our current energy problems, while renewables still can't. Unfortunately it suffers from a bad reputation and misinformation.

Yeah, this is one of those topics where any mention of the downside of storing spent fuel safely for 50-100,000 years gets you bombed on. Just like reddit.

[–] WhiteHawk@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, we do. Burying it works just fine.

[–] aksdb@feddit.de -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not a solution. That's a workaround.

[–] WhiteHawk@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

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

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.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] WhiteHawk@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] WhiteHawk@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 0 points 1 year 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.