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.

      • Cabrio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Darn all those superfluous safety regulations. If only we could make them cheap and fast and not worry about radioactive contamination like the coal industry.

        Seriously though, start enforcing adequate regulation on the other sources of life threatening power generation and watch the costs even out.

        • ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Coal isn’t the cheapest though. For new build power renewables + storage are. That is to say, the incremental cost of running a coal plant isn’t that massive, but cost to build + fuel one amortised over the lifetime is more than renewables + storage.

          So yes, you can enforce “adequate regulation” and nuclear will still be the most expensive.

          • Cabrio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes, but nuclear scales the best, requires lower geological footprint than renuables, and is safer than fossil fuels. Price is not the only metric of value.

      • very smart Idiot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes nuclear power plants are very expensive. But the energy density is phenomenal.

        Energetic armortisation is far quicker on a nuclear plant than on solar panels.

        And the argument of subsidies is usually a fake one, since governments also pour millions into renewable energies.

        Broken down to lifetime cost to the cost of comparable technologies, nuclear is still on the same level as solar and wind.

        Since I am from Germany, and German sources might not be ideal to share, let me explain it this way: People are not stupid. They will never choose the financially unwise option, if the other one would seriously be the better one.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          People are not stupid. They will never choose the financially unwise option

          I see you’ve never been to the U.S.

          • very smart Idiot@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok. Valid argument.

            But while Germany quit nuclear power, the rest reinforced their standpoint.

            Thousands of scientists from different countries all agreed upon nuclear power to be a reasonable source of energy. Even a Japan is still going forward with nuclear power. It is only Germany, which made an emotional choice, Merkel wanted to please the masses. And here we are now. Burning coal, as if we were thrown back into the industrial time, forced to use primitive methods to produce energy.

        • 🦘min0nim🦘@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Can you find any recent analysis that supports your claim that nuclear costs are at the same level as solar?

          The only one I’ve seen suggest this was from a nuclear industry lobby group, and it inflated the costs or solar by insane amounts.

          In Australia this is a bit of a hot topic and all impartial estimates suggest that nuclear will not get close to renewables in any way, even taking into account storage and grid costs.

          In the 10 years since this single reactor was built, one of our states has transitioned to almost 100% renewables. Wholesale costs have plummeted, but renewable projects are still profitable in the market. I was involved in a reactor project in a western nation some time ago (it’s still being completed unsurprisingly), and the lock-in wholesale price to support that project was simply extortionate. Solar generation prices are a whole magnitude smaller.