this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

88988 readers
3028 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
2
First U.S. nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 3 years ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
7 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
[–] Yendor@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 years ago (1 children)

The reduced operating emissions take 10+ years to outweigh the enormous construction emissions of nuclear. (Compared to gas.)

[–] cryball@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Fortunately the nuclear reactor can be operated for >50 years :)

[–] Yendor@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Sure. But do you think Nuclear reactors will still be cheaper than renewables + storage in the 2070s? Nuclear is far more expensive per kWh than renewables, and the cost of storage is falling fast.

[–] cryball@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

Good question, that one can only speculate on. IMO it's a two part question.

First is that newly built nuclear plants are expensive. So the question depends on if we bite the bullet (build the reactor) today or in 2070. One built today will produce cheap power in 50 years.

For example in Finland we have reactors from 1980, that make up the backbone of stable energy production in our country. Those are going to be kept online till the 2050s. I'd argue at that point the cost per kwh will be mostly dependent on maintenance and fuel, so relatively small.

Wind and solar cannot reap the same benefits if you have to replace the plant every 20 years.

Storage is a completely separate question that is not taken into account when new wind farms and such are being built. If one was to account for storage today, the cost of renewables would be much closer to that of other means of production.

Also in the future, if storage costs keep falling due to billions of R&D money, similar effects could be achieved in nuclear via serial production and scale.

EDIT: Just read you have studied this stuff for real. Then ignore most of what I said, as you might know better :D