720
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 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 2 days 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 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 1 day 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 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 1 day 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 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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?

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

World News

39376 readers
1952 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