Nuclear power now makes up about 25% of the generation of Georgia Power, the largest unit of Atlanta-based Southern Co.

First U.S. nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia::ATLANTA — A new reactor at a nuclear power plant in Georgia has entered commercial operation, becoming the first new American reactor built from scratch in decades.

  • aksdb@feddit.deEnglish
    71·
    1 year ago

    Aha … : https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/france-seeks-strategy-nuclear-waste-site-risks-saturation-point-2023-02-03/

    The plan, called Cigéo, would involve placing the waste 500 metres (1,640 ft) below ground in a clay formation in eastern France.

    Construction is expected in 2027 if it gets approval. Among those opposed to it are residents of the nearby village of Bure and anti-nuclear campaigners.

    Burrying waste is not exactly clean. Yes, they reduce the waste. But they are also hitting limits and have challenges in increasing capacities.

    In spite of the war in Ukraine, which has made many in the West avoid doing business with Russia, EDF is expected to resume sending uranium to Russia this year as the only country able to process it. It declined to confirm to Reuters it would do so.

    That is also not really cool. I also find it a bit shady that something is only doable in Russia. That sounds a bit like it’s only possible there, because they ignore safety rules any other country would have in place and we don’t care because “now it’s their problem”.

      • aksdb@feddit.deEnglish
        51·
        1 year ago

        But we don’t have that solution yet (see above). That’s like hanging on the idea of having nuclear fusion available. Yes, theoretically nice, but until they are practical, we shouldn’t count on it.

        Yes, theoretically the “waste” of current reactors still has energy to be harvested. But practically we can’t use them to a degree where there is no waste afterwards.

        For the past decades and sitll ongoing, fission reactors are not clean (also decomissioning them leaves a lot of unusable waste; and they have to be decomissioned at some point).

        Also from what I know, extracting the nuclear material from the earth and preparing it for use in a fission reactor is not very environmentally friendly either.

        Is nuclear better than coal? Very likely. But it’s not clean.

        • relic_@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          Reprocessing already exists and it’s been done for decades. I can’t imagine reprocessing fuel for recycling the usable components is that compelling in the US and it would be more geared to waste reduction. 99% of spent fuel by mass could be reused or otherwise treated differently for disposal as it’s radioactivity is much much smaller than the portion that has been transmuted during power production.

      • Giooschi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Every atom has energy in it, regardless of whether it is radioactive or not. Radioactiveness just makes it relatively easy to extract that energy. But even then, it’s not that simple, not every radioactive material is good for a nuclear reactor. If the fuel absorbs too many neutrons without fission, or produces elements that do, then it can become poison for the reactor. And if it, or the elements it produces, emit very few delayed neutrons and very quickly then it makes it harder to keep the reactor in a sub-critical state (i.e. it makes it harder to not make it explore). Often for these reasons you can’t fully use reprocessed fuel, and instead you have to mix it in low percentages with normal fuel. Reprocessed fuel is also harder (thus cost more) to produce since you have to work with highly radioactive materials.