New York To Build One of First US Nuclear-Power Plants in Generation (msn.com) 53
New York will construct the first major new U.S. nuclear power plant in more than 15 years, with Governor Kathy Hochul directing the state's public electric utility to add at least one gigawatt of nuclear generation capacity. The New York Power Authority will identify an upstate location and determine reactor design, either independently or through private partnerships.
The project tests President Trump's May executive orders aimed at accelerating nuclear development through regulatory overhaul, expedited licensing, and expanded use of federal lands for reactors. Only five new commercial reactors have come online since 1991, while nuclear capacity has declined more than 4% from its 2012 peak. Potential sites include grounds of New York's three existing plants owned by Constellation Energy. The state is already collaborating with Constellation on federal grant applications for reactor additions at the Nine Mile Point facility in Oswego and studying Ontario's small modular reactor initiatives.
The project tests President Trump's May executive orders aimed at accelerating nuclear development through regulatory overhaul, expedited licensing, and expanded use of federal lands for reactors. Only five new commercial reactors have come online since 1991, while nuclear capacity has declined more than 4% from its 2012 peak. Potential sites include grounds of New York's three existing plants owned by Constellation Energy. The state is already collaborating with Constellation on federal grant applications for reactor additions at the Nine Mile Point facility in Oswego and studying Ontario's small modular reactor initiatives.
Re: (Score:3)
Until it's built and operating, I call BS.
Well, they have to start somewhere. It's not like they are going to build it in secret and then announce it when complete.
The new units at Vogtle took about 10 years to build. It took about 8 years to build each new unit at the Barakah nuclear power plant in UAE. The latest I heard is that Hinkley Point C should be done after 12 years of construction. That's just a few that came to mind, I recall the average build time is somewhere between 7 and 8 years. That should set some expectations on completion
Re: (Score:2)
"The new units at Vogtle took about 10 years to build. It took about 8 years to build each new unit at the Barakah nuclear power plant in UAE."
Well, anti-nuke demonstrators in UAE get handled a leeeetle bit differently.
Not to mention the needed permits.
Re: "New York To Build..." (Score:1)
The federal government can expedite the federal permitting process (and they should), but the anti-nuclear activists haven't agreed to expedite their opposition...
Besides, to call this a 'plan' is a bit generous - they don't even have a location for this new plant...
This is a long, long way off.
Apologise, greens (Score:2, Interesting)
That is if you can find one who isn't now a trans activist, a Hamas supporter, or busy supporting whatever other nonsense is currently fashionable amongst the simple-minded.
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear is simply too expensive. Not even South Korea and the UAE can build a plant on schedule and under budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
No "greens" or protesters in that part of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany had to increase coal usage (Score:2)
How many countries or states have deep decarbonized with intermittent solar and wind? The answer is zero! Germany spent 500 billion euros trying and they failed! If they spent the same amount of new nuclear energy they would have succeeded. So stop with this "nUcLeAr Is tOo eXpEnSiVe" lie which only helps the fossil fuel industry.
Germany had to increase coal usage. Replacing nuclear with Putin's natural gas didn't work out as expected.
Re: Apologise, greens (Score:3)
Just make sure their free palestine vest doesn't have a detonator before approaching.
Re:Apologise, greens (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time you meet a green, remind them of their movement's stupid actions which prevented the building of nuclear plants which could have been saving the planet RIGHT NOW.
Yup. They are every bit as culpable for climate change as the fossil fuel companies. Now they complain it will take too long. Well it has taken a long time for us to get to where we have 400 reactors and 12,000 thermal coal plants in the world, so it is indeed going to take a long time to fix. Best start now rather than whining about how long it will take, that's the reason we are where we are in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
Old nerds grew up with nuclear and America is a nation of 12-year-olds so we're not going to let anything go. When we were 12 nuclear was super cool and we never grow out of anything anymore. We never did really...
If you want to
Re: (Score:2)
We have long since been at the point where wind and solar can produce baseband power.
How many countries or states have deep decarbonized with intermittent solar and wind? The answer is zero! Making your statement a boldface lie. Germany spent 500 billion euros attempting to and failed!
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need nuclear.
Did you inform Gov. Hochul of this? If so then how did she respond? If not then why not?
I have a suspicion that Gov. Hochul has subject matter experts advising her on the energy needs and capabilities in the state, advisors that know some things that you do not, and are aware of your concerns on cost and safety though maybe not your specific concerns but generally due to feedback from studies and public opinion surveys. They planned to build a new power plant anyway. Maybe with your insight they might c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is that if those modifications to shore up against the earthquake and tsunami were known to be needed and yet they did not happen nor was the plant shut down and if that was for financial reasons then that is an issue people are and should be worried about.
Re: (Score:2)
No one died, dude. Even after the earthquake, tsunami, and control systems fire, NO. ONE. DIED.
Just how safe do you think things need to be?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
1) Magnitude 9 earthquake
2) Followed by massive tsunami
3) Followed by devastating fire resulting in loss of ALL control systems
4) No one died. Repeat: no one died.
It's hard to see how anything could be safer than that. Imagine a similar scenario occurring at (say) the Three Gorges Dam in China...shudder.
Nuclear power has been operating in the United States for 70 years without one fatality to a member of the general public. Zero. A few plant workers have been killed (generally by non-nuclear causes, suc
Nuclear displaces petroleum, not renewables (Score:2)
We have long since been at the point where wind and solar can produce baseband power. We don't need nuclear.
Absolutely false. And every usage of petroleum proves you wrong. Nuclear displaces petroleum, not renewables.
Your sort of thinking forced Germany to increase coal usage when their policy to replaced nuclear with Putin's natural gas didn't work out as planned.
The reason we stopped building nuclear is because it's extremely expensive, highly risky due to social and political problems, and better replaced with wind and solar.
A lot of that cost is the political harassment, nuisance lawsuits. Wind projects have faced such harassment too, delayed decades, costs skyrocketing as a result. One ma the Massachusetts offshore projects for example. We have a solar farm project in
Re: Apologise, greens (Score:2)
You should google/chatgpt "ELCC", and how it relates to wind, solar, and batteries. Anymore it's a multisurface calculation of what a type of resource is "worth" to the grid from a reliability perspective, both in isolation and in conjunction with multiple other intermittent technologies. ELCC values for small penetrations of wind/solar/batteries can be "ok", say 60% of rated capacity, but rapidly drop with increased build out. We're talking low single digits %. Versus nuclear, thats rock solid at 90+% by a
Re: (Score:2)
We have long since been at the point where wind and solar can produce baseband power. We don't need nuclear.
I'm glad the problem is solved so I can continue not caring. Why do people keep whining about climate?
Re: (Score:2)
Or to paraphrase a well-known saying: "The best time to build a nuclear power plant was twenty
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
On top of that we have a shitload of deregulation going on right now in nuclear power because of the current administration. And the specter of Fukushima still floats above us all.
Remember none of the people re
Re: (Score:2)
USA nuclear good. Iran nuclear bad.
Untrue. Civil nuclear power generation is fine. It was all worked out, UN inspectors ready to observe fuel and waste, etc. There is currently a Russian operated reactor where Russia handles all fuel and waste.
However Iran decided to have a weapons program and to keep some sites off limits to UN inspectors.
Coal release more radiation (Score:2)
BUT RADIATION SCEEERRRYY!=
The US coal industry has release more radiation into the environment than the US nuclear industry.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nuclear energy is often sold as reliable baseload power, but in reality, it’s increasingly vulnerable to the very climate chaos it's meant to fight. Heatwaves raise river temperatures, forcing plants to shut down because the water is too hot to cool reactors without exceeding safety limits. Droughts reduce water levels so much that there's simply not enough to run the cooling systems. Freezing conditions can block intakes entirely. These aren't rare events anymore.
Maintenance and refueling take reacto
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fly Palestinian flags
Fly Mexican flags
Fly American flags
Fly Iranian flags -- You are here
Re: (Score:2)
I already knew nucleartards had questionnable morality and ethics, but conflating those opposed to uranium/plutonium fission reactors with other groups usually despised by right-wingers hits new lows and really shows your true colors: homophobe, racist pieces of shit. You're almost overshadowing trumptards.
I could have used my 15 mod points to downmod all of you all to hell, but unlike you, I have some ethics and I never downmod anyone simply because I disagree with them, although your tone alone, regardles
Only 1 GW? (Score:2)
What's the point then? New York ISO peaks at like 25GW, that's a drop in the bucket.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And frankly that should terrify everybody. You have the skeeziest people outside of crypto wanting to quickly spin up power with the technology that while safe when heavily regulated and subsidized can be astonishingly dangerous when you start cutting corners.
There's a reason why the US Navy and American research insti
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point then? New York ISO peaks at like 25GW, that's a drop in the bucket.
Well, they have to start somewhere to replace fossil fuels with something less polluting.
If I'm reading the numbers I found from the US EIA New York current gets 40% of their electricity from natural gas, and 20% from nuclear fission. This isn't just 1 GW, it's adding to the many GW of nuclear power already existing. This could just be the start to more nuclear power plants. Maybe we could see a total of 10 GW of new nuclear power capacity planned out before long, would that make you happy? With that mu
Who's Footing the Nuclear Waste Bill? (Score:1)
An important question remains unanswered: Are New York taxpayers also paying the nuclear waste disposal costs upfront? A gigawatt facility will generate substantial radioactive waste over its operational lifetime, requiring secure storage for decades and costing billions. It would be transparent if the state disclosed the complete lifecycle financing - including decommissioning and waste management - rather than potentially shifting these costs to future generations. Given the track record of nuclear projec
Re: Who's Footing the Nuclear Waste Bill? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.world-nuclear-news... [world-nuclear-news.org]
Re: (Score:1)
nuclear waste
Used fuel (aka nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant) is not a real problem. It just isn't. You can keep fearmongering but what we are currently doing(cool in water for 10 years followed by cask storage) is working extremely well.
The actual bill for cask storage is insignificant. It's not even a rounding error.
Used fuel has never killed a single human being.
There isn't a lot of it. We could put all of it a building the size of a walmart.
It is a solid metal meaning it can never leak.
It decays exponentia
Re: (Score:2)
NY State nor any state by themselves should not have to assume responsibility for this, there should be a federal plan and system for dealing with waste.
We tried with Yucca mountain but if the admin or any future admin is serious about nuclear power expansion this should be a part of it, either a centralized long term repository with a standardized system for transport and/or a federally operated re-processing system similar to how France handles it.
It is unreasonable and frankly irresponsible for the state
Re: (Score:2)
A gigawatt facility will generate substantial radioactive waste over its operational lifetime, requiring secure storage for decades and costing billions
Aaaaannd there it is.
The anti-nuclear bullshit F.U.D. to scare the plebes into fearing something that you and they both know nothing about.
Reactors can consume high level waste as fuel (Score:2)
A gigawatt facility will generate substantial radioactive waste over its operational lifetime, requiring secure storage for decades and costing billions.
Depending on the reactor design. Some modern reactor designs can consume high level was as fuel, turning it into low level waste. Building these sort of reactors could go a long way to cleaning up the current waste storage problem from legacy reactors. Such reactors could offer a large costs saving regarding current waste storage.
I'm torn (Score:2)
I'm torn on this. I believe nuclear is an import part of clean energy and should be used. At the same time, I know in the US energy companies are generally private companies, meaning they care about profits more than anything else. Nuclear power plants can be run safely, but I have no faith the an American company WILL run them safely. When the choice is saving some money or raising risk by 1%, most companies will take the small amount of risk to save the money. With a nuclear plant, that should never happe
Re: (Score:2)
There's 400 civil nuclear power reactors currently operating in the world today, many by private companies. Why are you concerned of the safety?
I'm not concerned of the safety because of the history of safety, and in knowing there's no profit in killing your customer base, having your reactor blow up into a cloud of radioactive dust, or seeing your plant break down and no longer produce energy.
We make safety vs. profit decisions all the time. Is it safe to have fires burning in your home? Well, there's r
Fiasco (Score:2)
Don't believe it (Score:2)
I'm pro-nuclear, but nowadays a new nuclear plant costs roughly 5-10 billion dollars. That'll buy a LOT of solar panels and enough batteries to make the system stable. The whole "storage means renewables won't work" argument i
Good! (Score:3)
It was a mistake to shutdown Indian Point which was replaced with 3 methane plants. This will go part way in fixing that mistake
Remember that the single largest cost of a nuclear power plant is interest. Almost 2/3 of recent builds are interest. Public financing or 1% loans will almost entirely cut that cost.
Climate change is real. Air pollution is real. Energy poverty is real. Nuclear power is are best chance at eliminating all three of those!
Aren't ALL Nuclear Power Plants (Score:2)
in generation? I mean, that's what they're *for*.
NYSEG? (Score:2)