News

11 readers

2 users here now

Breaking news and current events worldwide.

founded 2 years ago

The first US nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia (apnews.com)

submitted 2 years ago by Madison_rogue@kbin.social to c/news@kbin.social

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

ATLANTA (AP) — 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

[–] Wirrvogel@feddit.de 17 points 2 years ago (15 children)

The third and fourth reactors were originally supposed to cost $14 billion, but are now on track to cost their owners $31 billion. That doesn’t include $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid to the owners to walk away from the project. That brings total spending to almost $35 billion.

The third reactor was supposed to start generating power in 2016 when construction began in 2009.

A reactor that starts being built today will cost way more and will be delayed way more than these and they are already at least 14 years in the making not counted for the planning phase and 7 years late to be producing power and no they are not fully powered yet, because it takes another 1-2 years to get them to full power, not to mention drought and war threats.

Nuclear will not play any role in fighting climate change. A reactor starting planning today will most likely just replace an old model that is falling apart and to dismantle that and keep the parts safe somewhere costs another fortune.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 20 points 2 years ago (10 children)

Ironically, a major reason for this is environmentalists themselves. Nuclear power would be way cheaper if it wasn't for their panic over things that contain atoms.

[–] andyburke@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

There have been 3 fairly dangerous and catastrophic meltdowns rendering partial or whole plants inoperable within 4 decades. These meltdowns have caused long term environmental damage, killed people, etc.

If you're averaging almost a meltdown a decade, and where each time we have been lucky it hasn't been worse, I reject any claims that this is a safe technology that we have under sufficient control for it to make sense, especially when we have such cheaper and less dangerous ways to get the power we need now.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago

If you're including Chernobyl in that list, it was a hopelessly out-of-date design and the operators basically did everything they could to make it melt down as part of some kind of misbegotten "safety test."

If you're including Fukushima, that one didn't actually kill anyone. Though the tsunami that caused it killed over ten thousand.

Do you happen to know how many people get killed by hydro dams bursting, or by the side effects of coal power plants? Or the environmental degradation caused by the chemicals required for manufacturing solar panels? Nothing's completely safe, but nuclear power happens to be one of the safest by comparison.

[–] Unaware7013@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Now compare that with the amount of people killed by conventional power generated or how much of the planet was damaged when a spill occured. Bet the numbers don't look so bad when you compare the two. Hell, let's take it a step further and include the cancer causing effects of power generation on the people living in the vicinity of plants.

Nuclear has its problems, but quit spreading FUD.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (11 replies)