4 ms·

Maybe someone can elaborate on this, since I know basically nothing about chemistry or nuclear physics; isn't Three Mile Island still completely irradiated and

• CivBase 1y ago
  The article says the reactor they are bringing back on was active until as recently as 2019, so it's safe to say it's probably not uninhabitable.
• daemonologist 1y ago
  Unit 2 is the reactor that melted down and it has been shut down ever since (and partially decommissioned). Unit 1, a separate reactor at the same site, was operated normally until 2019 when it was shut down due to high costs. It was originally scheduled to be decommissioned by 2079 (sic) but is now being brought back online.
  • comrh 1y ago
    If it wasn't profitable in 2019, why is profitable now? Because Microsoft is commiting to be a customer?
    • pseudalopex 1y ago
      Microsoft committed to purchase the plant's capacity for 20 years. And US electricity demand grew very slowly from 2005 to 2020. It is growing rapidly now.
      • dreamcompiler 1y ago
        At around $110/MWh, according to the article. This is about 50% higher than what utility-scale PV or wind would cost. Guess they're using OpenAI accounting.
        • ip26 1y ago
          I imagine data centers make the best economic sense when they can run full tilt 24/7. You’ll double your payoff time if you can only run work when the sun shines.
          • epistasis 1y ago
            In most parts of the country, solar plus batteries to get through 24 hours will be cheaper than $110/MWh.
            • bawolff 1y ago
              Do you have a source for that, when i googled it came up closer to $200/MWh for new york, but that was from older sources. The only thing i saw approaching this price point was if you were somewhere like las vegas. I also think you would need more than 24 hours battery. You have to prepare for freak weather events that reduce system capacity. I also wonder what time horizon we are talking. solar and batteries presumably have to be replaced more often than nuclear.
              • toast0 1y ago
                > I also think you would need more than 24 hours battery. You have to prepare for freak weather events that reduce system capacity. In general, yes. Not really in the context of utility generation for a DC, though. A DC should have onsite backup generation, at least to supply critical loads. If your contracted utility PV + storage runs out, and there's no spare grid capacity available (or it's too expensive) you can switch to onsite power for the duration. The capex for backup power is already required, so you're just looking at additional spending for fuel, maybe maintenance if the situation requires enough hours on backup.
              • pseudalopex 1y ago
                The article cited a report which said new build solar and storage could cost from $50 to $131. And new build wind and storage could cost $44 to $123.[1] Civilian nuclear reactors replace fuel gradually over 3 to 6 years typically. 20 year old solar panels work now. New solar panels are expected to work over 30 years. Utility scale lithium ion batteries are expected to last 10 to 15 years. [1] https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2025-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
• piperswe 1y ago
  The Wikipedia page makes it seem like it's been largely cleaned up for decades: > In 1988, the NRC announced that, although it was possible to further decontaminate the Unit 2 site, the remaining radioactivity had been sufficiently contained as to pose no threat to public health and safety. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• khuey 1y ago
  No. Chernobyl (which was a far worse accident) continued to produce power at other units on the same site for 14 years after the meltdown of unit 4.
• egorfine 1y ago
  TMI was never irradiated and unsafe for humans to inhabit.