this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
726 points (99.1% liked)

World News

41185 readers
3678 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

France’s Flamanville 3 nuclear reactor, its most powerful at 1,600 MW, was connected to the grid on December 21 after 17 years of construction plagued by delays and budget overruns.

The European Pressurized Reactor (EPR), designed to boost nuclear energy post-Chernobyl, is 12 years behind schedule and cost €13.2 billion, quadruple initial estimates.

President Macron hailed the launch as a key step for low-carbon energy and energy security.

Nuclear power, which supplies 60% of France’s electricity, is central to Macron’s plan for a “nuclear renaissance.”

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Nuclear plant construction delayed? Budget overrun? Even in one of the most nuclear developed countries in the world? Wooooow, what a surprise!!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (21 children)

Renewables are far cheaper and can be built faster and if they malfunction, no one is in danger.

France already has enough Nuclear to deal with no-sun and no-wind phases (if they work properly, which is the other problem with nuclear energy in France)...

So, there is literally no reason to waste tax payer money and time like this and to force yourself to import material from Russia. Just build renewables until we get fusion energy...

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Renewables cant produce an on-demand baseload supply without the addition of significant storage capacity.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 8 points 2 months ago

Baseload is by definition not on-demand, baseload is always there.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] sit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 months ago
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (13 children)

They better retool their power plants to use something other than uranium. Last I read, we had about a century's worth at the current rate of mining.

[–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is that including all known deposits? Or just the amount in current mines?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's based on what can actually be used.

The world's present measured resources of uranium (6.1 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium

(Note this is a *pro-*nuclear power organization.)

New technology may change that. We were once told that the oil in the Canadian tar sands was not economical enough to extract and now they're extracting it. The paper also discusses the possibility of thorium as a fuel source, although it has yet to see commercial viability.

As-is, and with current reactors, we don't have much we can use. Relying on new technology to change that could be a poor gamble.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

When I was at school in the early 90s I was told oil would run out in 30 years, yet here we are, 30 years later and not only did it not run out, but people aren't even talking about it running out.

100 years is a long time, and I suspect that nuclear will seem very old fashioned by then, and today's power stations will have been long since decommissioned. If we're not getting close to 100% of our power from wind and solar and tidal by then, we'll be shafted anyway.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

When I was at school in the early 90s I was told oil would run out in 30 years

No you weren't. If you were, then you had a terrible teacher.

What you're probably thinking about "peak oil." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

[–] Minnels@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago

Nah man. I also heard this back when I was a kid in the 90s. It came from our news channels, not teachers in school.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] uis@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

its most powerful at 1,600 MW,

Fuck, that's 100 more MW than VVER-1500(project). Or 400 more than VVER-1200(working).

post-Chernobyl

???

is 12 years behind schedule

VVER-1500 is still project for 40 years. Most modern we have now is VVER-TOI (1300 MW).

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›