5 ms·

> Once operating, the two new units, which will be clean energy sources that produce zero air pollution, are expected to power more than 500,000 homes and busin

by elihu 4y ago

> Once operating, the two new units, which will be clean energy sources that produce zero air pollution, are expected to power more than 500,000 homes and businesses. I wondered how much actual power that was. More context is on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... The site has two nuclear reactors already, in use since the 80's. 3 and 4 are each 1250 MWe reactors. By way of comparison, the Zaporizhzhia NPP (largest in Europe) has 6 950 MWe reactors. (Edit: that's six 960 MWe reactors, not 6,950 MWe reactors.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla...

WinstonSmith84 4y ago
> Zaporizhzhia NPP (largest in Europe) has 6 950 MWe reactors. It's not 6950, but 5700. And 5700 is the total output (950x6 reactors). 1250 is among the most powerful reactor in the world. I think the most powerful is the EPR (French tech), but this has been delayed, and delayed, and ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)
- aaronblohowiak 4y ago
  >It's not 6950, but 5700. this is what the OP is saying, there are six 950 MWe reactors. might be a cultural difference on how we'd read "6 950MWe"
  - FPGAhacker 4y ago
    I read it as 6950 too. Maybe spell out 6 or use something as a separator (- or x or *) maybe.
    - fire 4y ago
      lol I'm not sure where I learned it but long ago I was taught to write out numbers that are ten or less, and this is probably the first time I've seen a case where it would have actually prevented confusion
    - halper 4y ago
      I don't mind using "×" myself in these cases. "6 × 950", and had I been writing properly I should have been using non-breaking spaces.
      - 867-5309 4y ago
        I am fond of the multiplication character too, but 1) it's not on any standard keyboard layout 2) it requires copying and pasting from a character map, alt code or html entity 3) it is usually reserved for mathematics
        cinntaile 4y ago
        6 x 950 problem solved
        dadoum 4y ago
        On AZERTY keyboards on Linux, I can use Alt Gr + ; (semicolon) to type ×.
        blooalien 4y ago
        Another option; <compose-key>xx ⇒ ×
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- surfsvammel 4y ago
  How interesting. An actual delimiter/locale issue happening IRL. I exclusively see them in code.
  - mmoskal 4y ago
    So funny, I first read it as six 950, but after the edit comment went back and read 6950 and totally thought the comment got updated in real time.
- disillusioned 4y ago
  Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station just _cooks_ at 1,310 x 3 reactors here in Arizona.
  - halper 4y ago
    You mean "boils"? I guess boiling is a form of cooking …
  - mech422 4y ago
    I believe it's still the largest in the U.S. though.. I also love the fact it's cooled using the city's grey water. I was just talking to a buddy of mine in Colorado - quick back of the envelope looks like he pays double ($0.26/KwH) what I pay in Mesa ($0.13/KwH) - and I think we're still on 'summer rates' ?
- ta988 4y ago
  The EPR is a vaporeactor... It is promised and delayed so currently its power and economic output is dramatically negative.
- tuukkah 4y ago
  After horrible delays and cost overruns, the Olkiluoto 3 EPR reactor in Finland has finally reached 1600 MW electricity production in the grid this year, and is forecast to finish the production test phase in December. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_3 The two EPRs in Taishan, China are even more powerful and at 1660 MW are the most powerful reactors in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishan_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishan_Nuclear_Power_Plant
dcdc123 4y ago
> (Edit: that's six 960 MWe reactors, not 6,950 MWe reactors.) That is why I almost always prefer to write out single-digit numbers. e.g. Zaporizhzhia NPP (largest in Europe) has six 950 MWe reactors
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
irjustin 4y ago
i tend to use something like - 2x 2,140
bayesian_horse 4y ago
"Clean" energy as long as everything goes right for the next fifty to a hundred years. No war fighting in the vicinity, no terrorist attacks, no "impossible accident" through unforeseen natural catastrophes, negligence, suicidal airline pilots (it has happened, fortunately they didn't try to hit a nuclear plant)... And of course the long-term storage problem, which almost no other country has solved so far, has to be solved, otherwise the timeline extends by a couple thousand years. Yeah, I'm no fan of nuclear power. I'd like to be, but I subscribe to the "black swan" school of thought, basically refusing to accept miniscule probabilities with extremely high downsides predicted over long timespans...
- nickpp 4y ago
  Yes, it's "clean energy as long as" - unlike coal or oil or gas which is dirty energy no matter what. So realistically let's enjoy our blessings and stop fearing such an incredible energy source just because somewhere someday something might go wrong. Those "extremely high downsides" are a few tens of square km dead lands and a few irradiated workers. Not such a bad perspective for a worst case scenario.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    The Fukushima incident had a cost of at least a trillion Dollars, with the estimate rising. Yes, there were lower estimates, those are old. Tschernobyl is still a hazard. You could argue it was a benefit that Russian soldiers irradiated themselves by digging trenches in contaminated dirt, but that's about it. And you probably underestimate the probability of such things happening. Bad intent is unpredictable. Bad intentions plus negligence plus accidents usually turns out to be worse than imagined, especially on this timeframe.

by elihu 4y ago

WinstonSmith84 4y ago

> Zaporizhzhia NPP (largest in Europe) has 6 950 MWe reactors. It's not 6950, but 5700. And 5700 is the total output (950x6 reactors). 1250 is among the most powerful reactor in the world. I think the most powerful is the EPR (French tech), but this has been delayed, and delayed, and ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)

aaronblohowiak 4y ago
>It's not 6950, but 5700. this is what the OP is saying, there are six 950 MWe reactors. might be a cultural difference on how we'd read "6 950MWe"
- FPGAhacker 4y ago
  I read it as 6950 too. Maybe spell out 6 or use something as a separator (- or x or *) maybe.
  - fire 4y ago
    lol I'm not sure where I learned it but long ago I was taught to write out numbers that are ten or less, and this is probably the first time I've seen a case where it would have actually prevented confusion
  - halper 4y ago
    I don't mind using "×" myself in these cases. "6 × 950", and had I been writing properly I should have been using non-breaking spaces.
    - 867-5309 4y ago
      I am fond of the multiplication character too, but 1) it's not on any standard keyboard layout 2) it requires copying and pasting from a character map, alt code or html entity 3) it is usually reserved for mathematics
      - cinntaile 4y ago
        6 x 950 problem solved
      - dadoum 4y ago
        On AZERTY keyboards on Linux, I can use Alt Gr + ; (semicolon) to type ×.
        blooalien 4y ago
        Another option; <compose-key>xx ⇒ ×
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
surfsvammel 4y ago
How interesting. An actual delimiter/locale issue happening IRL. I exclusively see them in code.
- mmoskal 4y ago
  So funny, I first read it as six 950, but after the edit comment went back and read 6950 and totally thought the comment got updated in real time.
disillusioned 4y ago
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station just _cooks_ at 1,310 x 3 reactors here in Arizona.
- halper 4y ago
  You mean "boils"? I guess boiling is a form of cooking …
- mech422 4y ago
  I believe it's still the largest in the U.S. though.. I also love the fact it's cooled using the city's grey water. I was just talking to a buddy of mine in Colorado - quick back of the envelope looks like he pays double ($0.26/KwH) what I pay in Mesa ($0.13/KwH) - and I think we're still on 'summer rates' ?
ta988 4y ago
The EPR is a vaporeactor... It is promised and delayed so currently its power and economic output is dramatically negative.
tuukkah 4y ago
After horrible delays and cost overruns, the Olkiluoto 3 EPR reactor in Finland has finally reached 1600 MW electricity production in the grid this year, and is forecast to finish the production test phase in December. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_3 The two EPRs in Taishan, China are even more powerful and at 1660 MW are the most powerful reactors in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishan_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishan_Nuclear_Power_Plant

dcdc123 4y ago

> (Edit: that's six 960 MWe reactors, not 6,950 MWe reactors.) That is why I almost always prefer to write out single-digit numbers. e.g. Zaporizhzhia NPP (largest in Europe) has six 950 MWe reactors

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

irjustin 4y ago

i tend to use something like - 2x 2,140

bayesian_horse 4y ago

"Clean" energy as long as everything goes right for the next fifty to a hundred years. No war fighting in the vicinity, no terrorist attacks, no "impossible accident" through unforeseen natural catastrophes, negligence, suicidal airline pilots (it has happened, fortunately they didn't try to hit a nuclear plant)... And of course the long-term storage problem, which almost no other country has solved so far, has to be solved, otherwise the timeline extends by a couple thousand years. Yeah, I'm no fan of nuclear power. I'd like to be, but I subscribe to the "black swan" school of thought, basically refusing to accept miniscule probabilities with extremely high downsides predicted over long timespans...

nickpp 4y ago
Yes, it's "clean energy as long as" - unlike coal or oil or gas which is dirty energy no matter what. So realistically let's enjoy our blessings and stop fearing such an incredible energy source just because somewhere someday something might go wrong. Those "extremely high downsides" are a few tens of square km dead lands and a few irradiated workers. Not such a bad perspective for a worst case scenario.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  The Fukushima incident had a cost of at least a trillion Dollars, with the estimate rising. Yes, there were lower estimates, those are old. Tschernobyl is still a hazard. You could argue it was a benefit that Russian soldiers irradiated themselves by digging trenches in contaminated dirt, but that's about it. And you probably underestimate the probability of such things happening. Bad intent is unpredictable. Bad intentions plus negligence plus accidents usually turns out to be worse than imagined, especially on this timeframe.