Technology

58115 readers

3922 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1621

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

396 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

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

The cost of storing nuclear waste for a running plant is only a few hundred thousand a year; basically just just salary for a few people to transport it to a big hole in the ground.

Decommissioning costs a few hundred million, which sounds like a lot, but for a project that lasts for decades it's basically nothing.

[–] n00dl3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You could probably fit all of the nuclear waste America produces in few trucks. It's not as much as people think.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The Department estimates that continued operation of the current fleet of nuclear power reactors could ~70,000 metric tons of uranium * increase the total inventory of spent fuel from 70,000 metric tons of uranium to 140,000 metric tons of uranium. Nearly all of this spent fuel is being stored at the reactor sites where it was generated, either submerged in pools of water (wet storage) or in shielded casks (dry storage). The Dept of Energy

Those must be some big fucking trucks. And as far as I know, only Finland has actually developed any long-term storage which could be considered safe.

Nuclear is fine, but nuclear fanboi takes are similar to weed fanbois, it's not a perfect solution.

[–] Waryle@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Here is the entire volume of high-level, long-lived waste that France needs to store over the long term for 80 years of nuclear power (with 70%+ nuclear power in its electricity mix).

The question of nuclear waste, hammered home by the anti-nuclear crowd, has long since been answered. And the answer is: it's far from being a problem.

As for the cost of storage and decommissioning, it makes no sense if we do not give a financial order of magnitude.

At French current electricity price, a 915MW reactor will produce 1.1 billion euros of electricity over one year. A 1500MW reactor will produce 1.8 billion euros of electricity over one year.

When you sell 60 billions of euros worth of electricity per year for 60 years, even if you pay 50 billions for storage and 2 billions to decommission an entire plant, it's still quite profitable.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)