2y ago

The first US nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia

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.

Hacker News @lemmy.smeargle.fans

bot @lemmy.smeargle.fans

BOT

2y ago

First new US nuclear reactor in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia

apnews.com /article/georgia-power-nuclear-reactor-vogtle-9555e3f9169f2d58161056feaa81a425

TechNews @radiation.party

irradiated @radiation.party

BOT

2y ago

First new US nuclear reactor in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia

apnews.com /article/georgia-power-nuclear-reactor-vogtle-9555e3f9169f2d58161056feaa81a425

37 comments

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.
- 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.
  
  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.
  In terms of safety, there's a big difference between nuclear technologies that fail elegantly like LFTR and more traditional designs that tend to use weaponized isotopes with very long half-lives, and can meltdown and explode when operated incorrectly.
  I can understand why environmentalists look at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and say, hmm, maybe we shouldn't do that.
  
  I really doubt that environmental regulations more than doubled the price. Especially when they knew about those regulations when they were planning it.
  
  That's the easy way out, just blame it on panic and not numbers, because you do not have numbers that make nuclear power look good compared to renewable energy. This is not about grandma being scared, this is about scientists presenting scientific facts and studies.
  
  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.
  
  The words "experimental nuclear reactor being built near you" appearing on a news feed is the fastest way to get every environmentalist in the area out to picket and unite with the coal and oil industry regardless of how safe the reactor is. We could be recycling our nuclear waste and massively reduce the amount we produce, switch to reactor designs physically incapable of melting down, or even switch to much safer and powerful liquid thorium based reactors, but no, nuclear is scary so any projects to build a reactor to replace several coal plants with zero carbon emissions and a lower death rate per kilowatt hour than even wind must be closed
- Yeah, people use this same argument for why fighting climate change is a bad idea.
  It’s just way too expensive to switch to renewables, or improve public transit, or use more sustainable agricultural practices, or retrofit our shipping industry, or switch to electric vehicles and transit, or ban single use plastics.
  Doing those things costs too much! They simply can’t be a part of fighting climate change.
  It’s the same old tired oil propaganda. Anything that isn’t fossil fuels is too expensive!
  And repeating their rhetoric for the last 50 years has served wonderfully to entrench fossil fuels.
- The future won't be these massive reactors, they'll be the small modular ones that can be built in a factory and brought to location.
  Lots of smaller micro grids that will be substantially easier to bring online
  
  https://news.stanford.edu/2022/05/30/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste/
  “Our results show that most small modular reactor designs will actually increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal, by factors of 2 to 30 for the reactors in our case study,” said study lead author Lindsay Krall, a former MacArthur Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC). “These findings stand in sharp contrast to the cost and waste reduction benefits that advocates have claimed for advanced nuclear technologies.”
  and
  https://cleantechnica.com/2023/01/18/the-nuclear-fallacy-why-small-modular-reactors-cant-compete-with-renewable-energy/
  “Small modular reactors won’t achieve economies of manufacturing scale, won’t be faster to construct, forego efficiency of vertical scaling, won’t be cheaper, aren’t suitable for remote or brownfield coal sites, still face very large security costs, will still be costly and slow to decommission, and still require liability insurance caps. They don’t solve any of the problems that they purport to while intentionally choosing to be less efficient than they could be. They’ve existed since the 1950s and they aren’t any better now than they were then.”
Renewables are fantastic, but I think we'll need to supplement with nuclear in order to shoulder the demand while we transition off of burning fossil fuels.
So in short, please build more.
- Might have been a good idea 20 yrs ago, but starting this now would be just a waste of time and money. Concentrate on renewables, it will be much faster and bring the price down quick.
  
  We can and should do both. In another 20 years we are still going to be fighting climate change. Nuclear power can help. It has unique advantages, like every power source. It should be part of the plan in some capacity.
  
  An angle that sometimes isn’t brought up is the land space required by different types of power generation. Renewables actually take way more space, and therefore way more of the environment than nuclear. Renewables have their place, but I think nuclear will always be with us.
  
  The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is now.
  Renewables won't be able to handle consistent base load requirements, especially as we transition to electric cars and have even more demand from the grid (and that's not even talking about increasing energy demands for heating and cooling to combat the weather effects of climate change), and will need to be supplemented with another form of generation. We need to be building out both nuclear and renewable generation to get us off of fossil fuels as soon as possible.
- I am in agreement there. Nuclear power has to be on the table when discussing renewables.
- Devils advocate, why built more nuclear plants when you could build more renewables? If it’s a scaling issue, in that you need a ton more infrastructure for renewables, and need to supplement with nuclear, wouldn’t that then always be the case in the future? I hear nuclear is needed to bridge the gap often, but it always sounds like it’s temporary, which I don’t understand - seems like nuclear would be needed forever if renewables aren’t able to scale well?
  
  Take solar as an example, the current technology isn't developed enough to generate the amount of Kilowatt hours necessary to provide ample power to users. You can't build to scale yet. Buffering with nuclear power, despite the long-term fuel waste disposal, is an effective way to help eliminate greenhouse gases.
  There's a need for high capacity power generation, and at this point the renewable technologies are not developed enough to ween ourselves entirely off coal and natural gas. Then you have to take into account the growing EV demand, which has barely begun to generate user demand.
  
  Nuclear is like watering a garden with a hose as opposed to renewables that has a squirt gun. The hose can shoot a lot more, a lot harder, for a lot longer. The squirt gun can do a good bit during the day but has to go be filled up at night from the nearby lake. It also doesn't give nearly as much water nor does it do it as hard. The only benefit to renewables is the 'bottomless' aspect where no matter how much of it we use, there's always more.
  And not to go fully into this, renewables like solar panels require rare earth materials that we can run out of so hedging our bets on that is dubious at best. Fission, while fear mongered by media into the ground is amazing in modern times and Fusion is on the horizon to try and win the hearts of those still, somehow, unconvinced.
Way over schedule and WAY WAY over the price it was supposed to cost. They've increased our bills more than once because of this bullshit, including an increase this year. Nuclear may be needed but the price is very hefty for the forced customers of these power monopolies.
Commissioners will decide later who pays for the remainder of the costs of Vogtle, including the fourth reactor.
The GA Public Service Commission has never met a price increase they didn't approve.
- Worth it though to have working nuclear and help stop global warming. I personally don't mind paying more to get more nuclear plants up and running.
- Chakan, you're a tough motherfucker, but I like your style.
Is this a pressurized water reactor, like the one at Fukushima?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor
- Is this a pressurized water reactor, like the one at Fukushima?
  Yes.
  
  Well that’s a shame. If you’re going to build new reactors, why not try a newer design that’s less risky and puts out less waste? Still waiting for a pebble reactor, for example.

37 comments