what does built "from scratch" mean? Just a more emphatic way of saying "built?" Or that it wasn't repurposed out of some already built building?
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
1622 points (99.9% liked)
Technology
59574 readers
3241 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
Im going to guess it means that it uses a new design of nuclear reactor because I doubt theyre repurposing an old building and slapping uranium in it
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ah, i remember studying the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design when I was at Uni. It had just been approved, and numerous plants were expected, with the first expected to be online from around 2010.
It’s 2023, and this is the first one to go live in the US.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Good to see industrial self sufficiency coming back to the US
Outstanding!
Vogtle was a massive shitshow of corruption and delays, never thought it would actually be finished. Ironically, the price of electricity is set to go up, so that promise of lower bills has gone out the window.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is awesome to see, but I wonder if an array of Small Modular Reactors would be the way to do it in the future. Nuclear is a fantastic and safe source of clean energy, so I hope it can compete better on the economic side.
I'm just guessing here, but due to the expensive safety, security, disposaal, and political requirements, big reactors are likely going to be the most cost effective for a long time.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I understand the need for nuclear. We HAVE to stop using carbon emitting forms of energy.
But I have never supported nuclear in the United States. Time and time and time again, history shows that corporations will water down the regulations around an industry. To the point of collapse. The problem is, when nuclear goes bad, its REALLY bad.
We can't even get our fucking TRAINS to their destination without greed derailing them.
how many fucking oil spills have we had because of lax safety? remember the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? that was due to lax safety regulations, all in the name of profit.
Please, tell me:
Why in the flying fuck should I trust the regulations around nuclear energy to hold?
Whatever you say, I'm not going to believe you. Not until the fucking lawyers of the corporations stop writing the laws for the congressmen to sign without reading or understanding.
What the FUCK is going to stop 'big nuclear' from re-writing regulations?
I want the regulations around nuclear to be so tight, no capitalist will want to operate under it. I want several rubber bands and a vice around the balls of whoever is running it.
I even think maybe corporations can't be trusted with it, and all nuclear energy should fall exclusively under the management of the DoD.
I’d push back that US regulatory bodies are strong and successful in some areas and that nuclear power doesn’t necessarily need to fall under regulatory capture. Consider the FAA - not perfect but does a pretty damn good job of keeping the skies safe.
load more comments
(2 replies)