5 ms·

Restart of Three Mile Island tests US appetite for nuclear revival

20 points by thm 2y ago

kelnos 2y ago
https://archive.is/Pv8vJ https://archive.is/Pv8vJ
chvid 2y ago
The China Syndrome was a great movie! Looking forward to a revival of this great genre.
- preisschild 2y ago
  It was a bad movie, because people started to believe it was based on reality...
- mrlonglong 2y ago
  No it wasn't. That film wrecked the nuclear industry and contributed to climate change as people turned to other carbon rich electricity generating methods.
  - ta2234234242 2y ago
    Three Mile Island and Chernobyl wrecked the nuclear industry. Why blame a movie when the real disasters were enough?
    - mrlonglong 2y ago
      These two were caused by dumb mistakes. Nuclear energy is safe when they are designed to fail safe when errors are made. Mistakes will always be made and we should always fail safe in these situations. That's why it's incredibly expensive to build them.
sofixa 2y ago
Similarly, Chernobyl Nuclear power plant continued operating until 2000, 14 years after the incident. Shutting down functioning reactors with no issues in an era where electricity consumption is growing on multiple fronts is wasteful, especially while there is no grid scale storage available and we need to decarbonise. Adding more reactors, as expensive as it is, will pay for itself over their lifetime (we have reactors today operating for 70 years and scheduled to operate past that, meanwhile solar panels and wind turbines have much shorter lifespans).
- eesmith 2y ago
  > and we need to decarbonise It won't be used to decarbonize our economy. It will be used to further the profits of Big Tech, who are already preventing coal power plants from shutting down, in their desire to feed their data centers. (Eg, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/08/google-meta-omaha-data-centers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/08/google-me... ) This will make it harder for other sectors to switch away from fossil fuels, by raising the price of fossil-free electricity relative to planet-killing sources. As this article points out, Microsoft is willing to pay twice normal rates for the area, which means none of the TMI electricity will help decarbonize the local area.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    > As this article points out, Microsoft is willing to pay twice normal rates for the area, which means none of the TMI electricity will help decarbonize the local area Microsoft's new electrical consumption being carbon free is a good start. Their other deals with small modular reactor companies will also give them money that will hopefully bring this tech to life, and make it available and affordable.
    - eesmith 2y ago
      > Microsoft's new electrical consumption being carbon free is a good start. No, it isn't. Tax corporate profits at rates we did in the 1950s, use the taxes and regulations to decarbonize, similar to how we used taxes to electrify and provide phone service. If we build out 20% new non-fossil energy sources, and all of its goes to data centers, then we haven't decarbonized our economy in any ecologically meaningful way. > will also give them money that will hopefully bring this tech to life And if it doesn't, we are 10-15 years later with even more CO2 in the air. This is a Hail Mary by companies afraid to suffer from the consequences of their pollution.
PeterStuer 2y ago
Technologie has changed, but mankind has not. It will still be the cheapest bidder, most corrupt, every corner cutting subpar material using fake report producing contractors building, inspecting, certifying and operating this stuff.
- guenthert 2y ago
  Exactly this is the problem. The physics and engineering are well understood, nuclear reactors can be built and operated reasonably safely, but that'll cost (particularly when considering malicious actors). Well, then there is also the issue of long term storage of radioactive waste ...
  - MrHamburger 2y ago
    > Well, then there is also the issue of long term storage of radioactive waste ... You have that issue regardless if you have nuclear power plants or not as you have radiation devices in hospitals or industry.
    - manfre 2y ago
      Your comment reads as "other industries have radioactive waste, so it's not a concern here." The type and volume of waste differs and is very relevant.
      - MrHamburger 2y ago
        Cobalt 60 from radiotherapy machine can kill you in exactly same way as spent Uranium rod from a power plant. For human body there is no difference between those two. And we are not even getting to burning coal and subsequent nuclear fallout from it, which is completely uncontrolled.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  Yeah, Fukushima was a management disaster, not a technical one.
BenFranklin100 2y ago
Fantastic news. The combination of nuclear and renewables is the foundation for a carbon free future. I’m also excited at the prospect of the new nuclear designs being built by the hundreds which will dramatically lower the per unit cost. Abundant, 24/7 reliable, clean power generation will decouple economic growth from environmental damage.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  How will nuclear power and renewables combine? They compete for the same slice of the grid, the cheapest most inflexible, a competition new built nuclear power loses due to be horrifically expensive. Thus nuclear power becomes forced into ever more marginalized peaking roles. Try calculate the cost for a kWh of electricity from a peaking nuclear power plant.
  - codewench 2y ago
    How do they compete for the same role? Nuclear is the definition of base power generation, whereas solar/wind/etc (when backed with massive battery farms) are perfect peaker plants due to their near instantaneous demand response.
  - chickenbig 2y ago
    > They compete for the same slice of the grid That depends on the market setup of the grid; if generator and retailer bypass the various market arrangements (as is the case in the UK since NETA) the price on the market is irrelevant. EDF can choose to have their own power transported to their consumers, leaving intermittent generators to be constrained away. Hence the CfD for Hinkley Point C is a relatively assured revenue stream, unlike for offshore wind merchant generators who are increasingly at risk from being constrained away (at the loss of their CfD payments, in exchange for a smaller constraint payment).
- deprecative 2y ago
  The power generated won't be used to power homes. It will be used to train LLMs. This does nothing to move us away from carbon. I agree nuclear should be utilized but only for the benefit of the working class. Nuclear for the sake of capital interests is a recipe for disaster.

20 points by thm 2y ago

kelnos 2y ago

https://archive.is/Pv8vJ https://archive.is/Pv8vJ

chvid 2y ago

The China Syndrome was a great movie! Looking forward to a revival of this great genre.

preisschild 2y ago
It was a bad movie, because people started to believe it was based on reality...
mrlonglong 2y ago
No it wasn't. That film wrecked the nuclear industry and contributed to climate change as people turned to other carbon rich electricity generating methods.
- ta2234234242 2y ago
  Three Mile Island and Chernobyl wrecked the nuclear industry. Why blame a movie when the real disasters were enough?
  - mrlonglong 2y ago
    These two were caused by dumb mistakes. Nuclear energy is safe when they are designed to fail safe when errors are made. Mistakes will always be made and we should always fail safe in these situations. That's why it's incredibly expensive to build them.

sofixa 2y ago

Similarly, Chernobyl Nuclear power plant continued operating until 2000, 14 years after the incident. Shutting down functioning reactors with no issues in an era where electricity consumption is growing on multiple fronts is wasteful, especially while there is no grid scale storage available and we need to decarbonise. Adding more reactors, as expensive as it is, will pay for itself over their lifetime (we have reactors today operating for 70 years and scheduled to operate past that, meanwhile solar panels and wind turbines have much shorter lifespans).

eesmith 2y ago
> and we need to decarbonise It won't be used to decarbonize our economy. It will be used to further the profits of Big Tech, who are already preventing coal power plants from shutting down, in their desire to feed their data centers. (Eg, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/08/google-meta-omaha-data-centers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/08/google-me... ) This will make it harder for other sectors to switch away from fossil fuels, by raising the price of fossil-free electricity relative to planet-killing sources. As this article points out, Microsoft is willing to pay twice normal rates for the area, which means none of the TMI electricity will help decarbonize the local area.
- sofixa 2y ago
  > As this article points out, Microsoft is willing to pay twice normal rates for the area, which means none of the TMI electricity will help decarbonize the local area Microsoft's new electrical consumption being carbon free is a good start. Their other deals with small modular reactor companies will also give them money that will hopefully bring this tech to life, and make it available and affordable.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    > Microsoft's new electrical consumption being carbon free is a good start. No, it isn't. Tax corporate profits at rates we did in the 1950s, use the taxes and regulations to decarbonize, similar to how we used taxes to electrify and provide phone service. If we build out 20% new non-fossil energy sources, and all of its goes to data centers, then we haven't decarbonized our economy in any ecologically meaningful way. > will also give them money that will hopefully bring this tech to life And if it doesn't, we are 10-15 years later with even more CO2 in the air. This is a Hail Mary by companies afraid to suffer from the consequences of their pollution.

PeterStuer 2y ago

Technologie has changed, but mankind has not. It will still be the cheapest bidder, most corrupt, every corner cutting subpar material using fake report producing contractors building, inspecting, certifying and operating this stuff.

guenthert 2y ago
Exactly this is the problem. The physics and engineering are well understood, nuclear reactors can be built and operated reasonably safely, but that'll cost (particularly when considering malicious actors). Well, then there is also the issue of long term storage of radioactive waste ...
- MrHamburger 2y ago
  > Well, then there is also the issue of long term storage of radioactive waste ... You have that issue regardless if you have nuclear power plants or not as you have radiation devices in hospitals or industry.
  - manfre 2y ago
    Your comment reads as "other industries have radioactive waste, so it's not a concern here." The type and volume of waste differs and is very relevant.
    - MrHamburger 2y ago
      Cobalt 60 from radiotherapy machine can kill you in exactly same way as spent Uranium rod from a power plant. For human body there is no difference between those two. And we are not even getting to burning coal and subsequent nuclear fallout from it, which is completely uncontrolled.
bamboozled 2y ago
Yeah, Fukushima was a management disaster, not a technical one.

BenFranklin100 2y ago

Fantastic news. The combination of nuclear and renewables is the foundation for a carbon free future. I’m also excited at the prospect of the new nuclear designs being built by the hundreds which will dramatically lower the per unit cost. Abundant, 24/7 reliable, clean power generation will decouple economic growth from environmental damage.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
How will nuclear power and renewables combine? They compete for the same slice of the grid, the cheapest most inflexible, a competition new built nuclear power loses due to be horrifically expensive. Thus nuclear power becomes forced into ever more marginalized peaking roles. Try calculate the cost for a kWh of electricity from a peaking nuclear power plant.
- codewench 2y ago
  How do they compete for the same role? Nuclear is the definition of base power generation, whereas solar/wind/etc (when backed with massive battery farms) are perfect peaker plants due to their near instantaneous demand response.
- chickenbig 2y ago
  > They compete for the same slice of the grid That depends on the market setup of the grid; if generator and retailer bypass the various market arrangements (as is the case in the UK since NETA) the price on the market is irrelevant. EDF can choose to have their own power transported to their consumers, leaving intermittent generators to be constrained away. Hence the CfD for Hinkley Point C is a relatively assured revenue stream, unlike for offshore wind merchant generators who are increasingly at risk from being constrained away (at the loss of their CfD payments, in exchange for a smaller constraint payment).
deprecative 2y ago
The power generated won't be used to power homes. It will be used to train LLMs. This does nothing to move us away from carbon. I agree nuclear should be utilized but only for the benefit of the working class. Nuclear for the sake of capital interests is a recipe for disaster.