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.

  • aksdb@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I wouldn’t call it “clean power”. We still don’t have a good solution for the nuclear waste.

    Edit: Downvotes because I am not religiously defending a technology and pointing out that there are downsides (EVERYTHING HAS DOWNSIDES!). Too many people from reddit here already.

    • cryball@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      In finland we have this big hole that goes half a kilometer into stable bedrock. The storage solution is engineered to withstand the next ice age.

        • cryball@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I guess this is a joke, but regardless. The current climate is quite different from having an ice sheet 3km thick on the ground. This summer we were nearing 30°C/85°F on some days.

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

      Compared to the downsides of virtually every alternative energy source, the downsides of nuclear are peanuts.

    • UnPassive@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear power plant waste doesn’t significantly contribute to climate change or pollution? So it’s “clean” by most metrics.

      Nuclear waste can generally be stored on-site without issue. Reprocessing would be nice, but not even necessary. Just because you don’t understand the problem, doesn’t mean others are “religiously defending a technology.”

      • aksdb@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Coal was also considered clean in the beginning because they didn’t have to sacrifice forests anymore.

        We may not consider the waste a problem now, but that may very well look differently in 50 or 100 years.

        Again: I am completely fine considering nuclear power as one of the best options we have. I am not so fine pretending it’s without tradeoffs, because that would ignore how any other form of energy generation in the past/ever finally turned out.

        • UnPassive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Coal was also considered clean in the beginning because they didn’t have to sacrifice forests anymore.

          False analogy fallacy

          We may not consider the waste a problem now, but that may very well look differently in 50 or 100 years.

          Argument from ignorance fallacy

          I am not so fine pretending it’s without tradeoffs

          No one is saying it’s free energy or perfect energy. I myself would argue it’s clean and solves some of our current energy problems, while renewables still can’t. Unfortunately it suffers from a bad reputation and misinformation.

    • Cabrio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure we do, put it in the holes we took the other stuff out of. Soon our whole planet will be nuclear powered.

      • aksdb@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Aha … : https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/france-seeks-strategy-nuclear-waste-site-risks-saturation-point-2023-02-03/

        The plan, called Cigéo, would involve placing the waste 500 metres (1,640 ft) below ground in a clay formation in eastern France.

        Construction is expected in 2027 if it gets approval. Among those opposed to it are residents of the nearby village of Bure and anti-nuclear campaigners.

        Burrying waste is not exactly clean. Yes, they reduce the waste. But they are also hitting limits and have challenges in increasing capacities.

        In spite of the war in Ukraine, which has made many in the West avoid doing business with Russia, EDF is expected to resume sending uranium to Russia this year as the only country able to process it. It declined to confirm to Reuters it would do so.

        That is also not really cool. I also find it a bit shady that something is only doable in Russia. That sounds a bit like it’s only possible there, because they ignore safety rules any other country would have in place and we don’t care because “now it’s their problem”.

          • aksdb@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But we don’t have that solution yet (see above). That’s like hanging on the idea of having nuclear fusion available. Yes, theoretically nice, but until they are practical, we shouldn’t count on it.

            Yes, theoretically the “waste” of current reactors still has energy to be harvested. But practically we can’t use them to a degree where there is no waste afterwards.

            For the past decades and sitll ongoing, fission reactors are not clean (also decomissioning them leaves a lot of unusable waste; and they have to be decomissioned at some point).

            Also from what I know, extracting the nuclear material from the earth and preparing it for use in a fission reactor is not very environmentally friendly either.

            Is nuclear better than coal? Very likely. But it’s not clean.

            • relic_@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Reprocessing already exists and it’s been done for decades. I can’t imagine reprocessing fuel for recycling the usable components is that compelling in the US and it would be more geared to waste reduction. 99% of spent fuel by mass could be reused or otherwise treated differently for disposal as it’s radioactivity is much much smaller than the portion that has been transmuted during power production.

          • Giooschi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Every atom has energy in it, regardless of whether it is radioactive or not. Radioactiveness just makes it relatively easy to extract that energy. But even then, it’s not that simple, not every radioactive material is good for a nuclear reactor. If the fuel absorbs too many neutrons without fission, or produces elements that do, then it can become poison for the reactor. And if it, or the elements it produces, emit very few delayed neutrons and very quickly then it makes it harder to keep the reactor in a sub-critical state (i.e. it makes it harder to not make it explore). Often for these reasons you can’t fully use reprocessed fuel, and instead you have to mix it in low percentages with normal fuel. Reprocessed fuel is also harder (thus cost more) to produce since you have to work with highly radioactive materials.

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

      Yeah, this is one of those topics where any mention of the downside of storing spent fuel safely for 50-100,000 years gets you bombed on. Just like reddit.

        • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          And why is that exactly? Decay means the problem will solve itself, all we need to do is keep the waste away from the outside world until then.

          • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            This would be a great solution if nuclear waste was a one-time non-reoccurring problem. More waste will be produced continually, and if more nuclear power plants are built to match energy demand, a lot more waste, multiple times more. Eventually we will run out of places to put it, and then of course also deal with the fact that every abandoned old mine or cave in the world is full of radioactive material.

            The closest “bury it in a hole” can come to a permanent solution is if the hole is on the moon or something. Even then there are downsides. Do you know how expensive it is to dig giant holes?

            • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              You are vastly overestimating the amount of waste a reactor produces. Look up some figures on the internet. There is no way we will ever run out of space to put it.

              • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                I have looked this up, thats why I already know this. You are underestimating how long nuclear waste lasts, and I would guess also underestimating just how many reactors we would need to meet power demands with nuclear as our main power source.

                Also never forget energy demand increases constantly, and the rate it increases also goes up.

                • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what people want to use nuclear power for. Nobody wants to power 100% of the planet with nuclear power indefinitely. It should only be used to replace fossil fuels as quickly as possible until we are able to fully satisfy our needs with renewables.

                  • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I never said 100% of the power demand. I said most of the power demand. As of now nuclear is a smaller part of the energy produced, and making it a significant part of the path away from fossil fuels would be a wildly expensive, slow, emission filled endeavor, not to mention the nuclear waste. But, people with opinions like yours act like it is a magic power battery we have failed to plug in out of stupidity. There is nothing quick about nuclear. You want quick, you go with wind and solar.