this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
670 points (92.4% liked)

News

35962 readers
3700 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Shuttering of New York facility raises awkward climate crisis questions as gas – not renewables – fills gap in power generation

When New York’s deteriorating and unloved Indian Point nuclear plant finally shuttered in 2021, its demise was met with delight from environmentalists who had long demanded it be scrapped.

But there has been a sting in the tail – since the closure, New York’s greenhouse gas emissions have gone up.

Castigated for its impact upon the surrounding environment and feared for its potential to unleash disaster close to the heart of New York City, Indian Point nevertheless supplied a large chunk of the state’s carbon-free electricity.

Since the plant’s closure, it has been gas, rather then clean energy such as solar and wind, that has filled the void, leaving New York City in the embarrassing situation of seeing its planet-heating emissions jump in recent years to the point its power grid is now dirtier than Texas’s, as well as the US average.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

there is one cool thing about nuclear though, if you know what you're doing they're ripe for government subsidy investment. One and done, they'll run for like 30-50 years. No questions asked. It's really just the upfront build cost that's the problem.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

The georgia plant just opened 7 years late and 17 billion over cost. It is already running residents $4+/month in fees, with up to $13+/month being discussed, and that outside of the cost of electricity. It far, far over ran even huge government subsidies, with the feds putting up 12 billion.

There are much better places to put those billions now than in incredibly late and overly expensive "modern" nuclear.

[–] IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

To be completely fair to them, a ton of the delay was over lawsuits. I mean, you'd definitely end up dealing with those regardless of where you put upa NPP, but just giving them that small benefit f doubt there.

I'm a customer of theirs, paying the stupid fee. They got all celebratory about getting to the end and now the bill has to be paid and oh look, it's the customers paying. Joy.

I work nuclear industry adjacent, so I guess it's job security. And with that disclaimer I'll add this:

Building new plants is definitely going to take too long. If we get small modular reactors that will help. Same way if we get better batteries for solar and wind storage or new tech in geothermal. The simple point is that we are 50+ years behind. We gotta try anything and everything. It's our only hope at this point. And no matter what, it's going to cost. Money, land, your view from your backyard. People aren't willing to sacrifice anything to get it done, and that's how it's going to end for us if we don't change. And that's true for literally every problem we have. Nimby-ism will be the death of us.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

most of that is going to be skill issues. "modern nuclear reactors" are multiple factors simpler than existing gen 2 and 3 plants. The problem is that they don't exist, and nobody wants to fund them right now.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If none of them have been built, then they aren't "modern" reactors. They are "theoretical" or "promising designs," with any improvements being just as "potential" as other unproven techs.

they are modern reactor designs, forgive me for not speaking like an autistic nerd who has a hyper fixation on weird shit for 12 fucking seconds.

They are modern reactors. Just like the RBMK is an old and antiquated reactor, even though they aren't being built anywhere. Same thing for BWR reactors, which aren't nearly as common as PWR even though they may be built every so often.

[–] Sodis@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

While renewables get build without subsidies, because they pay off anyway.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

there are a lot of subsidies for renewables right now. They both have use cases, and different advantages. Nuclear is just particularly apt for the exact situation we're in right now.

As economists say, diversify investments.

[–] Sodis@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You mean being in need of green energy as soon as possible? I don't see nuclear helping short term.

not immediately, but a very low carbon energy source that lasts for upwards of half a century? That's incredibly invaluable.

Especially if something were to plateau in solar or wind power for example.