Technology

59693 readers

4383 users here now

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

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1593

First U.S. nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

446 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

[–] cryball@sopuli.xyz 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago

The cost of the power it generates in 50 years aren't lower than the day it opens. If you amortise the cost of the plant over its life nuclear is stupid expensive per watt produced. It's expensive enough that renewables + storage is cheaper. Renewables + storage is also a lot quicker to build than nuclear.

Even after the uptick in cost of renewables in the last year (which was dramatic) they're still the cheapest new build power (even accounting for the integration costs). As an example here's the most recent annual csiro report on energy costs by type. It doesn't include full scale nuclear today because it's known to be unviable, but even 2030 projections on "if smrs are commonly deployed at scale" they're predicted to be a lot more expensive than renewables with integration costs.

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/energy-data-modelling/gencost

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You can't amortise your capital if just the variable operating and maintenance is more than replacing the reactor with firmed renewables. This is not the case yet, but betting that renewables won't halve in price one more time in 30 years is a pretty stupid bet.