First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled::NuScale and its primary partner give up on its first installation.
First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled
Submitted 6 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world [bot] to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Does solar power use some rare earth minerals and stuff like that? They own those, but you probably need them for nuclear and others
NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I can’t put a nuclear station on my roof or in my basement
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Yes and so do the batteries and all the controls.
joel_feila@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Yeah every power source needs some materials.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Yeah go ahead and make a solar system with the dirt you have on your land. All you are doing is supporting one group of corporations over another. Worst argument I have ever seen for solar is what you have presented today.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
Hey everyone, this comment doesn’t say that solar is bad. It says this isn’t the argument for solar the OP thinks it is. Solar requires a whole lot of mining and refining. Nuclear actually requires less. Using the same argument, nuclear is the better option. It’s just a stupid argument.
PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Solar power was actually pushed by big oil in the 70s, 80s and 90s because they were afraid of nuclear.
Stoneykins@mander.xyz 6 months ago
I remember so many nuclear stans on lemmy a bit ago refusing to acknowledge that renewables are getting so good and cheap that they are more important to solving climate change than nuclear. I wonder how they feel seeing investors pull out in favor of renewables?
Tattorack@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Like crap? Renewables are good in places where they work. Nuclear works everywhere and is more reliable.
Investors pulling out of a nuclear project like this just looks like a, really dumb kneejerk reaction. “Oh! New shiny thing!”
Reptorian@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
This. Green energy works best when complimented with nuclear energy. Then, we can ween away from big oil.
frezik@midwest.social 6 months ago
Nope, the writing was on the wall for almost a year on this one. The whole nuclear industry in general is a long history of cost and schedule overruns. This is more of the same. Investors are not dumb.
You can invest in a solar or wind deployment and have it running and producing revenue in six to twelve months. You can invest in nuclear with a stated schedule of five years, have it blow past that mark, needing more money to keep it going (or write the whole thing off), and then start actually getting revenue at the ten year mark. This isn’t mere speculation, it’s exactly what happens. Oh, and it’s producing at least half the MWh per invested dollar as that solar or wind farm.
It’s amazing anyone is putting any money into nuclear at this point. For the most part, they aren’t. The federal government has shown willingness to sign new licenses for plants. Nobody is buying.
SMRs do not appear to change any of this.
Now, something I think we should do is subsidize reactors that process old waste. Lots better than the current plan of letting it sit around, and probably better than storing it in a cave for millenia, too.
PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world 6 months ago
3 people got killed by one of these like 60 years ago due to blatant design flaws that could’ve been solve. This means they can never exist again.
sunbeam60@lemmy.one 6 months ago
I’m in both camps. We need massive amount of renewable energy installed and we should keep going.
But there comes a point where the last 20% will be extremely expensive to do via renewables. We will do the last 20% much cheaper if we keep our nuclear expertise and plants going.
I’m not saying “build only nuclear”. I’m saying “keep it going”.
Stoneykins@mander.xyz 6 months ago
I agree with this. I like nuclear, I think it’s neat, but I think it will be a minor player in solving climate change and meeting energy demands (unless there is some miracle breakthrough in fusion). It is perfect for specific locations/contexts.
I’m just bothered by:
People who think nuclear everywhere is the only possible solution to getting off foasil fuels, and have unrealistic expectations about its ease of building and price
and
People who trash talk solar and wind while being wholly uninformed about how effective and cheap those things are, and how fast they are getting cheaper and more effective.
For some reason, these people are often the same people.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Might be easier to get people’s opinions if you don’t insult them in the first sentence.
Stoneykins@mander.xyz 6 months ago
“stan” is a common word for excessive fanatic. It isn’t always purely an insult. I also was specifically referring to people that were pretty rude in their behavior before. Feel free to assume I’m not talking about you, I’m not saying there is anything wrong with people who like nuclear.
Think of me as a solar stan if it makes things simpler
Sneptaur@pawb.social 6 months ago
Nuclear stans? Us vs them thinking here.
Stoneykins@mander.xyz 6 months ago
Yes my political opponents are the people I disagree with. I don’t see your point here.
Fixing our energy demands so they stop fucking the planet doesn’t require us to hold hands and sing together, we just have to invest in the proper energy infrastructure. Arguing about what energy infrastructure is proper is a good way to make sure we are looking at all sides of this.
PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 6 months ago
It was such a unnecessary opinion that turned up so often on social media that I have to imagine it was seeded by mining companies.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Eh, classic problem. By the time we all realize something was actually a good solution and should be used, it’s time to move on. And some people don’t get that memo as quickly.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 6 months ago
I feel indifferent. Nuclear is good way to do shitload of energy. Not sure about the small reactors
AlexisFR@jlai.lu 6 months ago
Well you still can’t meet normal demand with how unreliable renewables are.
We still need the good and cheap batteries that doesn’t exist yet for it to be viable as a baseline power source.
Stoneykins@mander.xyz 6 months ago
Hi! Your information is outdated and we very much have the technology necessary to meet energy demand with renewables.
rambaroo@lemmy.world 6 months ago
It’s already a baseline source in many areas.
sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Damn
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Welp at least the Saudis will be happy.
Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
True, it does prove their six billion investment in making the largest solar project in the world was a great idea.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 6 months ago
You taking financial advice from the Saudis? Ok then.
autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] 6 months ago
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Nuclear power provides energy that is largely free of carbon emissions and can play a significant role in helping deal with climate change.
One hope for changing that has been the use of small, modular nuclear reactors, which can be built in a centralized production facility and then shipped to the site of their installation.
Their smaller size makes it easier for passive cooling systems to take over in the case of power losses (some designs simply keep their reactors in a pond).
The government’s Idaho National Lab was working to help construct the first NuScale installation, the Carbon Free Power Project.
Under the plan, the national lab would maintain a few of the first reactors at the site, and a number of nearby utilities would purchase power from the remaining ones.
NuScale CEO John Hopkins tried to put a positive spin on the event, saying, “Our work with Carbon Free Power Project over the past ten years has advanced NuScale technology to the stage of commercial deployment; reaching that milestone is a tremendous success which we will continue to build on with future customers.”
The original article contains 505 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
We’ve wasted so much money in r&d simply because it’s a tech that allows the rich to maintain their power monopoly, if we’d spent all that on more sensible options we’d be far closer to an ecologically sustainable future.
RickTofu@lemmy.world 6 months ago
What’s not sensible about nuclear power?
henfredemars@infosec.pub 6 months ago
Might save you a click:
Too many investors pulled out of the project, at least in part due to rapidly falling prices of renewables.
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Interest rates too, I’d imagine. Investing in new nuclear and expecting a decent ROI would be a dumb move now.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I am surprised they got any investors. From what I see the only way to get investment money is to say you are making a new social media app or building a condo.
Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Yeah the same reason nuclear is being rejected everywhere, it’s economically unfeasible and a huge liability - no one wants to end up with a hugely expensive powerstation that no one wants to buy power from because it’s a thousand times more expensive per kWh than any other option.
Contend6248@feddit.de 6 months ago
It is time