715
submitted 2 days ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 41 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[-] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's slow expensive tech because we don't invest in it.

Every technology is slow and expensive when you have nearly an entire generational gap in knowledge and experience.

You'll know that I'm not saying solar and wind are not cheaper, they all exist in a different capacity and fill in the gaps they best fit.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

We have invested decades and billions into reactor tech. The DOE just announced another 900 million for SMR, on top of previous billion dollar grants. So far, every SMR company has failed to make any progress. The DOE even certified one for use and it still can't get it done.

Meanwhile, solar/battery research is getting funding from tons of sources, government and corporate, and exploding forward in every direction. Solar arrays are being deployed all over the world at insane rates, propelled mostly by just how inexpensive, safe, effective and easy it is to deploy. Its because of solar/battery that we may even hit some of the 2030 "pie in the sky" climates goals that were set across the world.

Its pretty clear which of the two techs we should be spending time on.

[-] Argonne@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Both. There aren't enough rare earth materials to build enough solar panels to completely erase power plants. Panels have a devastating mining issue similar to batteries as well. Solar has lots of hidden costs no one talks about. It's cheap just like batteries but the opportunity cost is huge. Nuclear meanwhile has a high upfront cost which is the real reason it scares away investors. Also political anti nuclear nutters don't help with financing issues.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Solar panels can be made of many different types and volumes of material. First solar, the largest manufacturer in the US, uses a differenr process than chinese panels for example. Perovskite solar cells, which are not just yet ready for prime time but are advancing rapidly, don't use any.

Nuclear power has its own mining and rare material problems, in the form of uranium. You have to dig into the earth for it, and then after you use it, poison part of the planet forever. We still dont know what to do with all the nuclear waste we alrwady made.

Not exactly an ecological win.

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 4 points 21 hours ago

Nuclear power has its own mining and rare material problems, in the form of uranium. You have to dig into the earth for it, and then after you use it, poison part of the planet forever. We still dont know what to do with all the nuclear waste we alrwady made.

Thorium is 3-4 times more abundant than uranium, is generally safer to use and would produce less waste that is also less radioactive and can become safe in a reasonable timeframe (few centuries compared to few hundred/thousand? centuries). Historically the main issue with Thorium has been that it's not as sexy as uranium because you can't make nuclear weapons out of thorium.

[-] Argonne@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Perovskite uses rare earth metals too, so while they increase efficiency they are just as destructive

You can fit all the nuclear waste jn the world in one football field. It's not alot.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Perovskite are iterating through many different materials as the science settles on them, but one of the positives is that the materials aren't nearly as rare.

you can fit all the nuclear waste in the world in one football field

This is not true because of radioactive waste water, containment vessels and spent fuel rods, all of which are highly radioactive along with your football field of actual spent fuel, but okay.

If we could do this or something like it, why haven't we? Is it because no one on earth wants that football field? Is it because we tried this at sites like Hanford, Washington and its been a half century of ecological disaster?

People undersell just how destructive the entire radioactive waste cycle is. Nuclear is way, way better than coal and oil, but solar/batteries kick its teeth in here.

[-] Argonne@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Again, your hostility to Nuclear is completely misguided. Even the UN admits that Nuclear is needed to solve climate change https://news.un.org/en/interview/2024/06/1151006

China is building dozens of new Nuclear reactors while being the capital of solar panel manufacturing. There is no teeth kicking necessary. Nuclear kicks teeth out of everything in terms of reliability. Solar kicks teeth on speed and cost. Don't be a propaganda machine

Reminds me of this comic. Seeing it first hand with people like you

https://i.redd.it/9o6czv4wa58c1.jpeg

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Ha, uses a modified stonetoss comic to reply to me and doesn't address any issues I just brought up in the previous comment. Neato. Glad to know you dont have any answers to nuclear waste either. Youre in good company.

Im pro nuclear, but I am also pro basic math. Solar/battery are cheaper and way faster to build, and designed correctly, offer equivalent baseline loading as nuclear. It's a no brainer to back burner any nuclear project for solar/battery, and that's exactly what's happening.

Im glad this reactor finally got finished. Im also glad China is building nuclear. With its directed economy, total disregard for local and global ecology and totalitarian government, they can streamline nuclear deployments in a way that makes them viable. When they are done and they offline all the coal and oil plants they have also built, it will be a good thing. For the rest of the world, and especially the US with its wide open and near endless federal land, solar/battery makes the most sense.

The only real competition is "Enhanced geothermal." There is a 400MW plant that is being built in Utah right now that should come online in 4 years. If they can stay on target, then nuclear is really fully dead.

[-] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 22 hours ago

Can't wait to see enhanced geothermal take off tbh. I know that the drilling tech couldn't really get us to the depth we need to see the right energy gains, but you are right that there are companies out there looking to make strides.

[-] Argonne@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Geothermal is not viable in many places such as earthquake prone areas and also the east coast where the mantle has cooled significantly compared to the west coast which still has a hot, fresh plate in comparison. There are not too many viable places in the US for large scale geothermal power. Utah is in the sweet spot of a fresh plate in the west but far from major fault lines

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is "geothermal anywhere", not bog standard geothermal. They use drilling tech developed by the oil and gas industry to dig far past normal thresholds, making geothermal way more viable.

It's a pure baseload tech with no nuclear downsides. Current projections are that it could supply roughly 20% of all US power. A perfect compliment to solar/battery, and still faster and cheaper than nuclear, SMR or otherwise.

Still nothing to say about Hanford, huh?

[-] oce@jlai.lu 37 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

There is no particular reason solar "needs" to use any new land at all, given that we can just put it on the roofs we already have.

And the fact that we do dedicate land to it instead of only doing rooftop just goes to show that land use isn't anywhere near as important a problem as you insinuate.

Your comment is pure FUD.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 49 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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?

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago

Nuclear could take over existing coal plants which would allow use of otherwise unusable land that's been polluted by coal. It would require regulatory changes though, as the coal plant is already irradiated beyond allowed levels for nuclear.

[-] kautau@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

Yeah in a perfect world based on some rough data you could supply the entire planet’s energy requirements with a solar plant about 300,000 square kilometers, or basically the size of Arizona, which translates to about 0.2% of the total landmass on earth. That being said, I’m curious what a solar plant the cost of this nuclear plant would look like, and where they’d put it. I think centralized vs distributed land rights and compensation is really tougher than the tech at this point.

[-] zqps@sh.itjust.works 2 points 17 hours ago

wtf? Decentralized production is one of solar's greatest advantages.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 30 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Nevada just built a hybrid 1400MW solar/battery plant for 2 billion dollars in 2 years.

That 1400MW is solar panel + battery output, so it doesnt match nuclear's steady state, but ive done the math on these projects before. We should be able to can build a 3000MW solar generating plant with 1200MW battery supply for 16hrs at roughly a cost of 17 Billion dollars, or 1 Vogtle nuclear plant. My time estimate was 6 years. This would output 2x the power of the Vogtle plant during the day, and output just as much as it over the night.

The above makes solar/battery not only way more productive than nuclear, but way safer, and way faster to built. All of that is just with demonstrated, everyday tech available today. It ignores all the huge advances being made in various batteries and panels. In the decade+ that it would take to open just one more reactor, we will likely be able to 2x-3x the power and speed to build at a lower cost with just solar/battery.

Nuclear was the right answer for the last 50 years. That's no longer the case.

[-] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Something to note about this chart is that ground-mount silicon solar PV isn't considered for sharing land use with activities such as farming in comparison to how onshore wind is (i.e. agrivoltaics).

NREL in the US estimates that there are currently ~10.1 GW of agrivoltaics projects spread across ~62,400 acres (or ~7 m^2 / MW).

Even this being said, I think brownfield or existing structures for new PV is the way of the future for solar PV. There is so much real estate that could be used and has the potential to offset grid demand growth while providing greater reliability for consumers. You'll need the big players to help with industrial loads, but even then, the growth of Virtual Power Plants (VPPs) has the potential to balance loads at the same scale as the big players for the prosumer market.

Edit: I'll also make mention of floatovoltaics, or the installation of solar PV on bodies of water, either natural or artificial. This is a burgeoning side of the industry, but this is another area that could present net zero or even negative land use per unit of energy.

[-] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

Something to note about your link to solar fences is that one of the cons mentioned is that panels can't produce power for half of the day because they'll be facing away from the sun.

Bifacial panels exist and can collect energy from both faces of the module. We in the utility-scale space use these all the time. You'd want these over monofacial panels for fence applications

Yes. Bifacial seems like the obvious choice. And the fence should be NS orientation not EW.

[-] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

If you're trying to maximize energy collection then yes you'll want to face the fence rows NS.

But there are also some benefits for making use of vertical bifacial panels oriented EW. You get a bimodal energy plot: one in the morning and one in the evening when the sun's direct rays shine near horizontal (something NS panels can't collect).

I'd actually be interested in reading the literature on mixing these types of panel orientations to see what the resulting production yields would look like, and if stakeholders like utilities would find any benefit in them to help better manage grid demand in those peripheral times of the day.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

I'd actually be interested in reading the literature on mixing these types of panel orientations to see what the resulting production yields would look like.

Solar fencing produces 3% more yield and 30% more revenue than rooftop.

[-] Saleh@feddit.org 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is a poor argument. You just did what you explicitly should not do with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) results.

The ISO 14044 specifically requires life cycle assessment to include all relevant impact categories. In particular in comparative analysis it is crucial to not single out any one category, but look at the impact on the endpoints, e.g. ecosystems or human health.

https://www.h2.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Einrichtungen/Hochschulbibliothek/Downloaddateien/DIN_EN_ISO_14044.pdf

See page 37 onwards.

Here is the full LCA study, that you drew only one category from

https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf

Look at the Endpoint indicators, like "Lifecycle impact on ecosystems, per MWh, in pointes", "Life cycle impacts on ecosystems, no climate change,per MWh, in pointes", "Life cycle impacts on human health,per MWh, in pointes" etc.

Nuclear power does fare well in these categories, but often only marginally different to Wind Power and Solar Power. It certainly does not offset the cost difference, when you also have to include the opportunity costs of running coal or gas plants longer.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is a poor argument. You just did what you explicitly should not do when engaging in a discussion: building a straw man argument and cherry picking a part of an answer.

I highlighted two rarely mentioned and non-intuitive points about nuclear vs renewables, I bet a few readers learned about it. But, I didn't say renewables shouldn't be used. My conclusion says the opposite, don't have blocked opinions about technologies, use whatever is most adapted to the location, if it's renewable, that's great.

[-] Wanderer@lemm.ee -4 points 1 day ago

Could you compare it to land used for livestock or car parks or low density housing?

If we went 100% solar is that even noticeable compared to mentioned above.

You just making excuses.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 1 points 19 hours ago

I am not making any excuse, I'm providing additional points to consider.

[-] Wanderer@lemm.ee -2 points 12 hours ago

Pointless points. It's a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. You're just a fossil fuel shill.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Why do you have to reduce a discussion to chilling? What a sad attitude.
I guess you're not in a listening mood, but in case you are, let me state my opinion: I am in favor of all solutions that will help reduce the ecological crisis, which means reducing dependency of fossil fuels, raw materials extraction, and land usage among other things. I think both nuclear and renewables are good solutions for that, but they both have issues, so let's use what is most appropriate for every use case.

[-] rikudou@lemmings.world 7 points 1 day ago

Could you not compare unrelated stuff? What you just did is called "whataboutism".

[-] Wanderer@lemm.ee 0 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

"Land use is the main contributor to biodiversity loss"

Is that not a quote from what is being talked about.

How much of land use that is contributing to biodiversity loss is solar panels and wind? How much is energy in total?

It's fuck all. So yea that is relevant.

[-] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 9 points 2 days ago

Nuclear reactors have always been subsidized by the military. Solar and wind are so much cheaper than anything that came before.

this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
715 points (99.2% liked)

World News

39371 readers
2115 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