13 points

Oh wow, so even more radioactive waste that will afflict thousands of future generations and the environment for a tiny amount of produced energy now :(

permalink
report
reply
54 points
*

Coal plants spread radioactive waste into the air.

Fission plants leave a hot turd behind, but at least it can be buried in one spot out of reach instead of everyone breathing it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Yeah sure, coal plants obviously have to go. But why not invest in sustainable energy production?

Nuclear waste cannot just be buried, unless you don’t care about polluting huge areas with radioactivity. In Germany, there have been decades long debates where to store nuclear waste and even to this day there hasn’t been found a good storage for the waste we produced in the 70ies. And this shit costs billions of euros that the company profiting of the plant doesn’t have to pay but that in turn society has to pay.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It is a lot harder to get wind to turn a coal power plant turbine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Wyoming is investing heavily in wind even with the understanding that current turbine designs ultimately cost money to repair and operate as opposed to being a solution that pays for itself. The conversion of a coal plant to nuclear is part of a long term strategy to reduce environmental impact. They’re taking a long view approach that solar and wind can’t in the short term do what they need it to do but that continued use of coal, at all, even just for the short term, is untenable. Meanwhile, Wyoming is ALSO investing in research on using nuclear byproducts to generate electricity. I have a lot of complaints about Wyoming and how chill they are with the alt-right but I have to commend them that their energy strategy for their state basically reflects what we all need to be doing

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I see fission as a transitional technology, like CFL light bulbs vs LED lighting.

The transition has been struggling for 60 years for political reasons.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

That is simply not true, storage is a solved problem, and the reason for not having locations is a political problem. NIMBY (Not in my back yard) keeps the world from having permanent storage locations, not science.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

You forgot all the heavy metals too! Lots of brutal heavy metals in coal emissions and waste, which we dont get even in low level fission waste.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

So it’s just a nuclear plant and has nothing to do with coal?

permalink
report
reply
10 points

Sounds like it’s replacing the neighboring coal power plant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I had to dig up some other sources for info, but this is the case. The new plant has nothing to do with coal, but it is being built to replace the power production and local power related jobs in that area.

Sources:

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

At first glance I thought it was reuseing the coal plants turbines, but looking though the article the only connection I can find is that it’s located several miles away and the only connection is that it plans to hire a hundred or so people from the coal plant it’s replacing and that Wyoming’s powder river basin is nearby and its associated highly automated low sulfur coal mines are in the vauge area.

All this to say, yes it has practically nothing to do with coal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I wonder if it has to do with reusing the transmission lines from the coal plant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Coal plant burns coal to heat water, makes steam, and the steam powers a turbine to produce electricity. A nuclear power plant uses nuclear fuel to heat water and produce steam similar to a coal plant. It may do this indirectly (e.g. second loop between the nuclear fuel and water loop to prevent the water becoming radioactive). This means that to build a nuclear plant you essentially need to build a coal plant, and then also the nuclear reactor and safety stuff, which makes them more expensive. Since coal plants are being turned off anyways, it might be more cost effective to just retrofit old coal plants so the only cost is the nuclear reactor side of things (plus any necessary maintenance and upgrades)

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

This was posted in c/Environment yesterday. I bring that up to point you over to that thread, where @Powderhorn@beehaw.org had some great insights into why this move is more regressive than it sounds.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Thank you

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

So originally I wasn’t federated with !environment@beehaw.org so couldn’t read the post, I’ve now read it and can understand everything I didn’t before. It’s disappointing. But I’m glad that wave power was mentioned as I think that will be huge in the coming years. Hopefully it’s not as far off as @Powderhorn@beehaw.org suspects. I feel like with ground source heat pumps, we have heating sorted, but we’re still looking for solutions in power and wave seems the obvious solution.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It’s an investment problem. No one is doing scalable wave power because the money is in offshore wind.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Such a shame given how much water covers the surface of this planet

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@beehaw.org

Create post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 2.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.9K

    Posts

  • 53K

    Comments