Technology

59111 readers

4138 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

[email protected]

1564

First U.S. nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

399 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

[–] giddy 31 points 1 year ago (78 children)

14 years and 35 billion (combined with #4 which has not been finished) and didn't generate a single kWh in anger until now. Put the same investment into renewables and it would generate similar or greater energy and would start doing so within a year.

The argument against nuclear now is not about safety. It is about money. Nuclear simply cannot compete without massive subsidies.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Renewables and nuclear play different sports.

Renewables are better for most of our needs but there is a backbone need of base power. Nuclear is an expensive but clean way to provide that.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (14 children)

By my very very very rough calculations, you could build a large scale solar farm with 3x power output and have enough money left over to build a 33GWh battery. That would more than cover a continuous supply of 1GW.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless there are a few cloudy days in a row... My panels produce a lot less than normal during cloudy days.

[–] ephemeral_gibbon 1 points 1 year ago

Proper analysis has been done on this and it's very achievable. With sufficient storage (which is lower than you'd expect to need intuitively with a full grid + mix of renewables) solar + wind in combination are the cheapest forms of power today. E.g. Here's a cost analysis by csiro (aus government science body), that includes an optimisatic estimate of costs for nuclear in 2030 with widespread smr adoption. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/energy-data-modelling/gencost

Renewables with integration costs are the cheapest by a good margin

load more comments (12 replies)

load more comments (74 replies)