257
U.S. Seeks to Boost Nuclear Power After Decades of Inertia
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
257 points (96.1% liked)
News
23412 readers
2814 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Lets see if the tech is still relevant in 20 years once its ready. Other energy sources are getting cheaper, as well as storages. And nuclear power is slow due to high safety requirements.
Maybe I am wrong and they don't need 20 years to build a nuclear power plant and I would celebrate this as a win for the planet – but I highly doubt nuclear will play any significant role in the transition to green energy.
It is just too reliable, can be put almost anywhere, and takes up so little space. It is routine for a reactor to hit over 50 years of continuous operation only hydro can brag about that and it is very limited in where it can go.
Nuclear power is part of the solution not even the majority as far as I am concerned but it is there. The numbers I have seen are 23% of global emissions comes from hydro-carbon power plants and 24% from industrial which also includes the local power they generate. With nuclear we could eliminate a lot of the problem in only a few years.
'Few years' – there has been no Nuclear Power Plant in the last 50 years, which has been built faster than 15 years – except for Chinese ones.
Also 'can be put almost everywhere' is quiet a stretch. For example french has build a lot of NPPs at rivers, which now shut down in Summer due to drought.
If you take things seriously it gets done. If you spend thirty years fucking around in courts and with permits it takes thirty years. About 60% of my clients are various governments ranging from federal on every continent to towns that have under a 100 people. A government project takes as long as people want it to take.
Just to give you one tiny example. I had a project in Dubai for what should have been a pretty simple system. We had this project manager between us and the government and I legit think he has an anxiety disorder plus he is someone's nephew and not at all qualified. The result was never ending paperwork. Between me and my coworker we ended up ranking in about 80 or so hours just filling out paperwork for what should have been a system so simple that our permit generation system could have handled it. This is really not an exaggeration. It should have been about fifteen minutes entering values into a python script and ended up being 80 hours.
Want to know how we finished the project? The CEO of the company got furious and sent an email saying that there will be no more paperwork and they could take it as it stood or not.
All it takes is someone running things to say "no" and suddenly problems that are unsolvable become trivial. This event happens about once every two months or so at the corporation I work at.
It sucks that it is like this but honestly no one excepts government to work.
Pretty simple to build a NPP in a dictatorship.
Maybe. As I mentioned with Dubai they can also pretty bad at infrastructure.
Too me at least it is accountability. When the government/people expect things to get done they tend to get done. When everyone accepts corruption and foot dragging you get both.
Nuclear is still the best we have to provide green energy that can meet the rising energy demands worldwide. At least until fusion tech is figured out, but that's more like 50 years.
How so? Renewables produce electricity at a much cheaper rate. Meeting rising energy demands is easier with cheaper production.
Solar has had impressive growth, but the land use needed to actually meet all electrical demand is a lot. Solar still needs a backup solution, battery tech to solve this doesn't exist and any realistic cost estimate is on par with nuclear.
It's going to take decades to build enough panels anyway, so we might as well build some nuclear anyway. It significantly reduces the amount of solar needed.
You don't have to dedicate the land solely to solar. There are many places where it can improve the environment/efficiency through dual use, e.g. parking lots or even fields with animals. Many places also have more than enough space to dedicate to it. I don't see this as a real problem.
Nuclear also needs a backup solution (e.g. due to summer heat or maintenance). Battery tech has improved massively over the last years, and grid-level storage is being deployed as we speak. A new nuclear plant doesn't have to compete against current batteries - it has to compete against the batteries we'll have built by the time the reactor is finished. Even if the cost estimates right now are on par with nuclear, they won't be in a couple of years.
Solar (and other renewables) are much faster to deploy than nuclear reactors are. In the same time, and with the same resources you've spent on a reactor, you could have built multiple times the generation capacity in renewables.
Sure, as does any other power source. But we should go for the cheapest and quickest solutions - and nuclear fission isn't, and will most likely never be, either of those.
I love it. All of civilization has to be redone just to get around using nuclear power and meanwhile people like you are complaining about how much work nuclear takes.
What are you talking about? Which part of which civilization has to be "redone"? I genuinely have no idea what you could be trying to express here. Nuclear power currently makes up roughly 10% of global power production - it's not just small, it will keep getting smaller because it's fundamentally not economic.
Reaping double benefits from dual land use isn't "redoing all of civilization", it's "not being stupid and taking an opportunity when you see it".
I'm not "complaining about how much work nuclear takes". My whole point is very simple, but I'll gladly repeat it:
Do you understand now? If you're willing to look at this objectively, nuclear simply doesn't make sense.
Fine show me the battery infrastructure to support it
No thank you, you are not a person worth wasting time on :)
Have fun supporting big coal
The DoE just approved the first new reactor designs to be approved in decades, so while the permitting and construction will take a while, there will be new plants coming online. Six are already approved.
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/large-lwr/col/new-reactor-map.html
Which is good – but it will take at least 20 years until they operate. And the US doesnt need 6 – they need 600. And until 2050, so in 26 years. Too little, too late, too slow.
Fair point.