this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
722 points (99.0% liked)

World News

39380 readers
2613 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
[–] oce@jlai.lu 133 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (29 children)

For additional context, one of the reason for the delay and cost increase was the absurdly complex design due to French and German companies trying to collaborate on a new design as Germany was turning anti-nuclear, which culminated with Germany deciding to stop nuclear energy after the Fukushima Daiichi event.
Another big reason is the knowledge loss due to almost one generation without any reactor built in between.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 41 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (28 children)

Now do Georgia's Vogtle reactors 3 and 4, which came in at 34 billion for 2 x 1200mw plants, 21 billion over the original 14 billion estimate, and took over 14 years to build, 8 years behind schedule.

Im glad these powerplants finally got built. They will help, but nuclear is just not reasonable anymore. Its a slow, expensive tech, especially when we are making such leaps and bonds with solar/battery.

[–] oce@jlai.lu 37 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (17 children)

Even if wind and solar make huge progress, they will likely never be as efficient regarding raw materials efficiency and land use. Land use is the main contributor to biodiversity loss.

I don't think peremptory opinions about technologies are going to help. We should use what ever technology is the most reasonable and sustainable for each specific location.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 49 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

Total land used for all power to be supplied by solar would be a hilariously tiny percentage of land, so this just reads like a solar version of "its killing birds" to me.

Agrivoltaics also side steps this non issue, as interlacing solar panels into farm land increases yields for many crops while making efficent use of space that's already spoiled any biodiversity. Can you do that with a nuclear reactor?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
[–] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 45 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Olkiluoto unit 3 took 18 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant?wprov=sfti1

It’s the same French EPR tech and the whole project was plagued with mistakes because the French wanted to cut corners and just get it built as fast as possible.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like pretty much every software project I've ever worked on

[–] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

The difference here was that STUK (the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear safety org) isn’t a backwater shop like the French kinda assumed. It’s a world-class setup that consults around the world.

They caught so many mistakes that the project went ridiculously over time and budget. The French crew had kids born and go to school in Finland before it was over - it was supposed to be a few years of expat experience 😆

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (10 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 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days 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 days 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 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Don't worry, the consultants are already on the task and invoicing hundreds of millions for their hard work.

No ETA but will keep you posted... in about 12 years.

[–] AlexisFR@jlai.lu 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›