Building a facility that eliminates the need for the main export of the state… That’ll be a hard sale.
That was kinda my point. Someone needs to wrestle control of that state from the people actively destroying it. And I think the case can be made. "People of WV, as you probably already know, the days of Big Coal are already numbered. These nuclear facilities are going to make the economics even more untenable for an industry that is destroying your state by shaving the tops off of all your mountains, dumping the leavings in your backyards and streams and giving you cancer. So you can either keep hanging on to Big Coal, which has been screwing you for decades, or you can move on and start to rebuild your economy in a way that won't leave it dependent on a single, dying industry. Choose wisely."
Or just move out and move on. I love the state, and it will always be home, but the economy... That's a topic for a different thread. Regardless, West Virginians can be as stubborn as they come, and I would be amazed if any nuclear power plants got built in WV without the federal government forcing them to do so.
I know, I know... it just sucks that the people there are so afraid that they're allowing the industry to completely ignore the actual costs of their preferred mining method. That method: a) requires MASSIVE transport truck that are themselves a major polution source. b) permanently destroys headwaters that are essential for many ecological processes c) pollutes the hell out of the streams and rivers all the way to the Atlantic d) leeches deadly toxins into the drinking water e) releases deadly toxins into the air f) only focuses on physical stabilization during the reclamation process, which is only the tip of the iceberg g) ruins any chance at developing a tourism economy (WV really is a beautiful place) h) doesn't actually require that many workers, so contributes very little to the local economy And all of this to extract arguably the worst of the worst of our energy source options...
Finally. While not perfect, it's still the best option at the moment and for the foreseeable future... We need a comprehensive plan to begin using green energy resource, but use the best none green resource (nuclear energy) until green enery reaches the cost threashold.
This is timely. The government in Niger that made deals to sell uranium to China has been overthrown. Maybe we can get that stuff from the brand new Chinese-financed mines instead.
Why not thorium reactors? They worked before, they could work again. Other countries seem to be able to see the potential advantages, but we seem to only care about plutonium.
Three Mile Island is reopening and selling its power to Microsoft | CNN Business Constellation Energy announced Friday that its Unit 1 reactor, which closed five years ago, is expected to be revived in 2028, dependent on Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval. Microsoft will purchase the carbon-free energy produced from it to power its data centers to support artificial intelligence. Financial terms of the 20-year agreement, which Constellation called the largest ever, weren’t disclosed.
I'd still prefer windmills and solar, but I understand that nuclear is a way better option than "drill baby drill".
Some numbers (not official) However big you think this Microsoft nuclear deal is, I am telling you, it's bigger. One of the biggest power deals ever. ~$800 million/yr for 20 years$16 BILLION for one nuclear reactorFrom a 40-year-old reactor, just to get to age 60.We now have a market for newbuild. https://t.co/iMEFfZBcnA— Mark Nelson (@energybants) September 20, 2024
Problems with nuclear: Huge startup cost Hard to get approval for a new site Need LOTS of water Need LOTS of concrete Take a good while to be commissioned (5yrs is if everything goes smoothly, which never happens in the US) Russia is still about the only place to get fuel rods Uranium in the US is largely found on land we’ve relegated American Indians too, and they ain’t having it (similar to lithium) smart to relaunch an existing one. Even though it is expensive, at least it will actually happen.
Yes. But also remember that burning coal releases even more radiation overall than does nuclear. Nuclear contamination is largely contained, and acutely toxic, whereas burning coal and refining&burning petroleum spreads its radiation out across the globe. We are paying for the costs of massive energy consumption one way or another.
And much deadlier. 40 Iranians died in a mine explosion over the weekend and these kind of deaths are so commonplace they are barely news.