First U.S. nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia
First U.S. nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia
Nuclear power now makes up about 25% of the generation of Georgia Power, the largest unit of Atlanta-based Southern Co.
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're viewing a single thread.
People will kill me for it but to all the disgusting idiots in the comment section here just know that nuclear power isn't renewable, that we can't even cover a fraction of the energy we need with it, that there isn't a single proofen way to actually store the waste (just temporary facilities) and that the cost of building them (especially in the west) is far to high to stop any timw soon!!!
well on a long enough scale the whole of earth is temporary. That said yeah we can store it in container that survive a train crashing into them. At that point how much more safer can you be.
All solutions taht go byond theory manage one or maybe two hundread years, the rest is pure fiction and possibly won't ever work...
not from what I have read on it.
Because people like to pretend that we can dispose of it in old mines and it will bind to the correct materials but that's the theory part because rn we store it in very temporary containers that are desinged for decades not centuries
not from what I've read.
I really liked the part when you linked a source in your comments. Oh, wait
I'm no expert on the topic (I'm not some kind of scientist) but I have done research around nuclear energy
-
Nuclear energy isn't renewable This is true, but uranium is much better than coal or oil. It is nearly 20,000 times as energy dense meaning you need 20,000 times less uranium than coal for the same amount of electricity. Although there is less uranium than coal on earth, its energy density means we would need a lot less of it and it would go a lot further
-
We cant cover a fraction of energy use with it This is blatantly wrong. The reason we haven't is down to public stigma around nuclear energy and its dangers from mismanagement. If we really wanted we could go fully nuclear with enough time and investment
-
There isnt a single proven way to store the waste This is also false. We have 2 primary ways of storing the actually dangerous waste, or the high-level nuclear waste. Those being in large cooling ponds in nuclear plants or encased in ceramic and concrete for longer term storage, often waste that cant be recycled. For medium and low level waste we dispose of it safely in separate waste handling plants similar to a regular waste management plant
-
The cost is really high This is the main limitation of nuclear and i wont dismiss this because its a valid concern. Nuclear has a really high initial cost while its operating costs are really stable compared to other methods. Nuclear energy has the tradeoff of massive power for massive initial cost
- Yes but there also is a lot lesa of it on eath
- No that's just wrong, the global supply of usable Uranium couldn't even supply the current world energy consumption for more than a few years
- All of that isn't wrong except that the concret isn't actually proper storage, it's desinged to hold the material for a few decates and the proper storage solutions (stuff it's supposed to bind to long term in old mines) is in a pure theory stage and hasn't been done before
- The initial costs are high but a joke in comparison with disposal and deconstruction costs so they aren't the actual issue in the cost factor and unlike the later actually funded by the company operating a plant
-