• viking@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Not at all, but long term storage of exhausted nuclear rods still costs an unknown amount of money endless centuries into the future. So you can’t really put a number on the final bill.

        • realitista@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 years ago

          Some types of reactors can also use those waste products as fuel and in turn make them into other waste products that only last a couple hundred years, so it’s not a easy calculation to make unless you know what’s deployed in the future.

          • viking@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            That has been suggested for decades, problem is that if any of the transporters blow up on their way to space, you essentially have a dirty bomb covering half the planet. No bueno.

      • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        It was usually old-style (insecure) and expensive, covered with hidden funding, or new tech (somewhat secure) and even more expensive.

    • biber@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Depends. Right now it isnt really that impressive. Bit questionable to build new nuclear power imho.

      Just given that other power sources are so much cheaper.

      Then there is also the controversy of explicit and implicit subsidies. For instance here: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/nuclear_subsidies_summary.pdf

      a report that shows historically the subsidies were enormous. Right now it seems a bit tricky to estimate - but I haven’t read the report in detail.

      Edit: sorry wanted to answer @qooqie

        • 4onen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Have you got a nice big valley with an existing water flow to donate or sell to a new hydro plant?

          Hydro is absolutely great (if you ignore local ecosystem ecological damage) but it has very significant land use requirements. These can make it difficult to build practically once you have most of the good spots filled in, so it’s incredibly difficult to price new builds of it. Some areas may be infinite cost because the land topology simply doesn’t exist. Others may have the perfect site and be relatively cheap.

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    What’s “4th generation”? Is it a whole new process or did they just make the previous stuff more efficient?

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    BEIJING, Dec 6 (Reuters) - (This Dec. 6 story has been corrected to change the timing and reason for NuScale’s plant termination in paragraph 5)

    China has started commercial operations at a new generation nuclear reactor that is the first of its kind in the world, state media said on Wednesday.

    Compared with previous reactors, the fourth generation Shidaowan plant in China’s northern Shandong province is designed to use fuel more efficiently and improve its economics, safety and environmental footprint as China turns to nuclear power to try to meet carbon emissions goals.

    Xinhua news agency also said the 200 megawatt (MW) high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor (HTGCR) plant developed jointly by state-run utility Huaneng, Tsinghua University and China National Nuclear Corporation, uses a modular design.

    Proponents say they can operate in remote locations and power traditionally hard-to-abate heavy industry sectors, but critics say they are too expensive.

    China has also not signed a pledge by 20 countries at the COP28 climate conference taking place in Dubai to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050.


    The original article contains 266 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 35%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I know China is mostly going green because they don’t have that much oil compared to other minerals, but it’s still very nice to see all these advantages they to in renewable energy.

      Both solar and nuclear.

  • trackcharlie
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    61
    ·
    2 years ago

    Hope it’s not leaking like all their other fucking nuclear reactors