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.

  • paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    That video completely ignores decommissioning costs for nuclear power plants and long-term nuclear waste storage costs in its calculation. Only in the levelized cost of electricity comparison does it show that nuclear is by far the most expensive way of generating electricity, and that it simply can’t compete with renewables on cost.

    People love to look at nuclear power plants that are up and running and calculate electricity generation costs based just on operating costs - while ignoring construction costs, decommissioning costs, and waste disposal costs.

    • Oderus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Does that video talk about how wind turbine blades aren’t recyclable at all so they end up in landfills? Solar panels are 75% recyclable which is excellent but that still means 25% is going into the ground. Nuclear is the only way forward.

    • icydefiance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The cost of storing nuclear waste for a running plant is only a few hundred thousand a year; basically just just salary for a few people to transport it to a big hole in the ground.

      Decommissioning costs a few hundred million, which sounds like a lot, but for a project that lasts for decades it’s basically nothing.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or even less if we – gasp, shock, horror! – reprocessed it.

          (We don’t do that because of overblown fears about nuclear weapons proliferation.)

        • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The Department estimates that continued operation of the current fleet of nuclear power reactors could ~70,000 metric tons of uranium * increase the total inventory of spent fuel from 70,000 metric tons of uranium to 140,000 metric tons of uranium. Nearly all of this spent fuel is being stored at the reactor sites where it was generated, either submerged in pools of water (wet storage) or in shielded casks (dry storage). The Dept of Energy

          Those must be some big fucking trucks. And as far as I know, only Finland has actually developed any long-term storage which could be considered safe.

          Nuclear is fine, but nuclear fanboi takes are similar to weed fanbois, it’s not a perfect solution.