• Sonori@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • Dempf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

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

    • jjagaimo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      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)

  • flora_explora@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 month ago

    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 :(

    • Steve@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

      • flora_explora@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 month ago

          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

        • infinitevalence@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

        • Steve@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • flora_explora@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Yes, I get that. But I think we should just keep in mind that it is no sustainable or long-term solution. Since many people have started talking positively about nuclear energy in the last few years, I think it is important to remind everyone of the problems that arise with it.

      • infinitevalence@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

    • sabreW4K3OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      So originally I wasn’t federated with [email protected] 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 @[email protected] 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.

        • sabreW4K3OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

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