A contractor fell into a reactor cavity and a bundle of fuel rods almost fell over.

US regulators have issued a warning to a nuclear project critical to Donald Trump’s efforts to revive the industry, after a contractor fell into a reactor cavity and a bundle of fuel rods nearly tipped over during refueling.

  • erin@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    53·
    2 days ago

    Nuclear is getting drastically cheaper as of late, and will likely continue to do so. Power infrastructure should not operate to turn a profit, but to provide a service. Nuclear does not take drastically different power infrastructure than current fossil fuels. Radiation is genuinely a non-issue. Waste can be stored in seismically inactive rock above the water table and be essentially ignored forever. Coal causes far more radiation contamination, by orders of magnitude, than nuclear, not to mention there has been barely any nuclear energy incidents, and we only know so much about the ones that did happen because of fearmongering. If water temperature is affecting the local rivers, the plant is mismanaged and poorly designed. My local plant only draws water from its own artificial lake, and does not affect the environment. In fact, it’s lake and the surrounding area was turned into an excellent park, where I hike often.

    The reasons why nuclear makes a ton of sense, at least right now:

    • Power storage technology is not ready for 100% renewables on most grids, so some level of base power needs provided
    • Nuclear can replace existing fossil fuel plants, since they provide nearly the same service
    • Renewables are not available everywhere. In places where the solar flux is too low for significant parts of the year, both wind and solar can suffer. If the power grid is entirely reliant on them, this could cause catastrophe. Nuclear bridges that gap without affecting CO2
    • Nuclear is already nearly at the point where plants can be built on-site for power supply on power hungry infrastructure with relative ease, and is only getting better and cheaper.
    • Until we have other options and better power storage, some base load power is necessary, and nuclear is infinitely preferable to fossil fuels

    Nuclear won’t be a forever solution for large grid power, and will eventually be replaced by mature renewable infrastructure. That time is not going to be in the next decade, or even two, most likely. In the temporary, it can largely replace the fossil fuel industry that is killing the planet. In the long term, on-site reactors will allow power hungry infrastructure to avoid affecting the local power grid, like research institutions, large scale manufacturing, and data centers. You’re totally right in that renewables are far preferable to nuclear, but they simply aren’t swap in, swap out replacements for each other. Nuclear isn’t really competing with renewables, it’s competing with fossil fuels. They’re both critical parts of what we need to get off fossil fuel dependence.

    Edit: For the record, coal plants can take upwards of 8 years to construct and typically multiple decades to “break even.” We don’t operate power infrastructure because it’s profitable, but because we need it.

    • Reality@feddit.org
      3·
      1 day ago

      Source on nuclear getting cheaper to build?

      Also, solar and wind plus storage is cheaper, faster online, does not need artificial lakes, nor 1000 year storage that has historically been horrible. Plants also historically didn’t need to update security. It’s literally the worse option. Even with green hydrogen and storage.

      Your coal argument is a strawman/whataboutism. I’m saying skip nuclear unless you’re around the artic circle.

      • erin@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        13·
        1 day ago

        Source on storage that has historically been horrible? Our storage facilities are pretty simple. Just a salt mine in the desert. My source on nuclear getting cheaper to build is that many, many companies are choosing to plan on-site nuclear plants rather than other options, and Eastern countries building it cheaper year over year. In the West, nuclear cost per kWH has dropped significantly over time, but construction costs have moderately increased (mostly due to mismanagement). I agree, nuclear isn’t super applicable outside of certain areas, but even in metropolitan areas that have good access to sun and wind, you still need extensive storage capacity for periods of less activity, which just doesn’t exist on the scales we need yet. It’s not a funding or adoption issue, we literally just haven’t figured out good solutions for efficient power storage on the necessary scales yet. We either need better battery tech or more efficient potential energy solutions. Artificial lakes are already present and usable, and can provide protected habitats and natural areas. Nuclear is a good option. There is a reason China and India are making such a transition, even when they’re aiming for full renewables. We need base load, for now, and nuclear is the best of bad options.