Technology

60048 readers

2963 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

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tasmania

Generates nearly all its power using hydro electric, which is great but pretty dependent on geography.

South Australia

Wiki says a pretty big hunk of that is still gas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_South_Australia#/media/File:Electricity_generation_SA_2015-2021.svg

In Ontario Canada where I am from it would take > 4000 wind turbines all working at once (not including the batteries) to supplant our nuclear capacity. Even the largest battery storage are in the hundreds of mega watts and only for a few hours at the cost of about half a billion dollars.

I think it is more productive to approach these technologies as complementary as any proper grid should have both for the near future if we want to reduce global warming.

[–] ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Ah sorry, my mistake on that one. Despite how many wind turbines working at once it may take, the power from the is cheaper by a long shot than nuclear.

The reason I don't think nuclear is the main solution is just cost + build time. It's horrendously expensive. Much more so than the cost of renewables with proper grid integration (transmission, storage etc.) that has been modelled.

Maybe in a while the small nuclear reactors may come close, but currently the full sized reactors are too expensive and smr's aren't really a thing yet because of cost.

If power prices can come down instead of go up it's going to be a lot easier to convince everyone to transition away from fossil fuels, and from modelling that's been done (e.g. by csiro) that can be the reality