SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Various news outlets report that Unit 2 of the Watts Bar nuclear power plant, owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), has begun operation. The reactor is rated at 1.15 GW and cost $4.7 billion ($4.09 per watt). Ground was broken on the project in 1973; construction work was suspended from 1985 to 2007.
Watts Bar Unit 1, which began operation in 1996, is one of three plants which manufacture tritium under contract to the U.S. government for use in hydrogen bombs.
Around the United States, 99 other commercial nuclear reactors are in operation and four others are under construction:
[...] Scana Corp./SCE&G's V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 in South Carolina and Southern Co.'s Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia.
In related news, the TVA is taking bids for its unfinished Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station in fabulous Hollywood, Alabama. It has received a bid of $38 million.
coverage:
- VOA News (U.S. government source)
- Fresno Bee
- Chattanooga Times Free Press
- Knoxville News Sentinel
- Bloomberg BNA
- The Hill
- Power Magazine
previously:
US Regulators Issue First Nuclear Plant Operating License Since 1996
(Score: 0, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 26 2016, @07:28AM
Money for nothin'! (except fissile material appropriate for illegal weapons of mass destruction), chicks for free! Yes, you can light your lights, TVA, but at what moral cost? At long last, Federal Agency, have you no shame?
And this is why, I cannot tolerate all these alleged nerds, who say they support nuclear energy, but whom we know are military brats, probably with the family name of Bannon, who only advocate nukes because they think it produces military domination. Or, even more insidious: produces nuclear superiority on the basis of monthly power bills, rather than actual taxes. Oh, the irony! jhallow must be either so happy, or so distraught! Or both at the same time? Boom, Soylentils! Big Badda Boom!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mtrycz on Wednesday October 26 2016, @08:30AM
I agree with this comment (maybe not the wording), but feel humbled to upvote because of groupthink. Is it bad?
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 26 2016, @09:00AM
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
And:
I agree with this comment, but feel humbled to upvote because of groupthink.
There is no try, young paduwan! In Soviet Russia, the group thinks YOU!
Seriously, no, just go with what you know to be true. Sometimes the groupthink is the truth, sometimes it is not. The only way to be a free person is to know when it does and agree because it is true, not because it is the the hive mind telling you so. And contrairily, knowing unlike the Buzzard of Might that the opposite of the think of group is not always the way of right. Wing. Right wing, that is. Could be wrong. Thinking in a group, with Jesus!! and the Bundy clan and the Angle Moron. Labia Moron, Moloun Sheepers!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 26 2016, @10:01AM
Group think is roughly equal to mass hysteria, IMHO. When everyone thinks alike, no one is actually thinking.
Those who think contrary to the group are going to be right at least as often as they are wrong. Hysteria is always wrong. Witness the efforts at gun control.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday October 26 2016, @04:44PM
> Those who think contrary to the group are going to be right at least as often as they are wrong.
So you mean that the individual brain is as good as a group of brains... When did your boss start inviting me to his meetings?
> Hysteria is always wrong. Witness the efforts at gun control.
Thanks for using a period, but you could have used a semicolon. The hysteria of the people clinging to a free gun market (and rushing to buy more) every time you hit them in the face with evidence that better regulation is a necessary inconvenience, that's pretty wrong.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:36PM
Those who think contrary to the group are going to be right at least as often as they are wrong.
Unless they aren't. This is known as the balance fallacy.
The balance fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when two sides of an argument are assumed to have equal or comparable value regardless of their respective merits
Like, for example, if the larger group were to base their opinion on science and a massive accumulation of supporting evidence.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 26 2016, @09:37PM
Uhhhhh - group think has nothing to do with science. Or, only in so far as a scientist sometimes gets included in the group for one reason or another. You DO realize that scientists are subject to emotions, scientists are subject to injustices, and scientists can be brainwashed and/or influenced by those around them. Scientists are human, so sometimes, they join in the groupthink. But, it has nothing to do with science.
When science does influence the thinking of a group of people, that is called a consensus of opinion, or some such.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by charon on Thursday October 27 2016, @01:56AM
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday October 27 2016, @04:52AM
Well, pro tip, look up the half-life of tritium. Has nothing to do with the point I was making. But still, military-industrial complex is the motive force behind nuclear power. And any time Charon, the ferryman to the underworld, does not understand what I am saying . . . hey! Could this be why I haven't died yet? Gosh, I hope this doesn't get out, because if I start making sense . . . .
[
[
[
Insert More Talking Heads here: Stop Making Sense!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @10:35AM
You made a good decision. He's just trolling in favor of groupthink.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 26 2016, @07:55PM
I think that what you think groupthink is, is not what groupthink actually is, even though you keep using that word.
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Friday October 28 2016, @07:55AM
Oh hey, this thread is still alive :)
What I actually wanted to imply was that my perception is that Soylent's median opinion on nuclear, is that "it's good and necessary: the benefits outweigh".
(But maybe it's the groupthink on the green site, and not actually Soylent, which being more popular has more shills among sincere supporters?
Anyway, I thought that your post was controversial and against the popular opinion here, and was dubious about upvoting it, that's all.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @04:08PM
Yes, you can light your lights, TVA, but at what moral cost? At long last, Federal Agency, have you no shame?
You mean the moral cost of fewer deaths and less radiation than existing solutions (primarily coal), less toxic waste, and effectively no CO2. Oh, wait... that's more moral benefits. Why should there be shame?
Yes, there are problems with nuclear (especially disposal of waste), but it's not obvious to me that it is appreciably worse than coal.
who only advocate nukes because they think it produces military domination
My limited understanding is that modern nuclear technology doesn't necessarily require or produce products relevant to nuclear weapons. However, even assuming it did, this argument is silly.
Knives can stab people, so should we should ban them from the kitchen? Cell phones can be used to remotely trigger bombs, so should we should confiscate all of them? Encryption can be used to hide terrorist activities, so should all the internet should be unencrypted?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday October 27 2016, @04:32AM
You are talking to someone who claims to be almost 2400 years old. Fissile Nuclear reactors produce waste that will emit lethal levels of radiation for more than 20,000 years. One of the interesting problems for the nuke waste disposal programs is how to mark this stuff as dangerous for people 20,000 years in the future, when all written language we have now will certainly be as obsolete as cuniform. Hubris, Manhattan is thy name. We are become death, the destroyer of worlds. This does not end well. Could it? Maybe. Worth the risk, without the need for weapons more destructive than Russia and North Korea? Probably not. So let's get some perspective, OK?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:04PM
Yes, let's do get some perspective. The 20K years is a bunch of bunk designed to make the whole thing look infeasible.
The more realistic outlook is that the waste will be hot enough to require isolation for 250-500 years (depending on your standards) if it is separated out from the actinides (aka useful nuclear fuel). Keep in mind, it was radioactive before we dug it out of the ground too.
High school students generally manage to read 250-500 year old English well enough to get the gist of it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:01PM
The moral cost of this nobody-killing, GHG-reducing power supply is quite a bit lower than many competitors. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 26 2016, @06:39PM
It is just that Nuclear power seems to never have actually been practical, except under subsidy from the military.
one of three plants which manufacture tritium under contract to the U.S. government for use in hydrogen bombs.
Funny how some people see this clearly when it comes to Iran's efforts at developing nuclear power!