Technology

60048 readers

3269 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

1564

First U.S. nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

392 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

[–] Yendor@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I literally studied this exact nuclear design at University - the Westinghouse AP1000. You can look up the WNISR (World Nuclear Industry Status Report) if you don’t want to take my word for it.

Don’t forget, mining and enriching uranium still has a significant carbon footprint, far higher per tonne than any fossil fuel. Yes, it’s lower over time, but we need to be reducing emissions now, not in 50 years time.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah I hate how laxness about fixing this in a timely manner has somehow convinced some people that shit like "carbon nuetral by 2070" is ok and helpful. And I'm just remembering when that study came out that said the climate as we know it is probably gone forever if we aren't totally carbon nuetral by at least 2030

[–] neutronicturtle@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Why are you comparing fossil fuels and nuclear "per tonne" that makes no sense. You replace tens of tones of nuclear fuel per year any you burn millions of tones in a comparable fosil fuel plant.

And regarding the carbon emissions from enrichment... Just use nuclear to power your enrichment plants. This way your emissions are extremely low because you don't need much fuel and you use nuclear energy to produce nuclear fuel. French example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricastin_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[–] jasondj@ttrpg.network 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why compare per ton of fuel when per kWh would be the more meaningful metric?

What are the cradle-to-grave emissions of a nuclear plant, vs a fossil fuel plant, per kWh generated. That is a far more honest question, and I’m inclined to err on the side of nuclear.

[–] DoomBot5@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let's not forget radiation caused by the power plant. Nuclear produces far less radiation than a coal plant.