720

France's most powerful nuclear reactor connected to grid after 17-year build (www.lemonde.fr)

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

250 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] TheBlackLounge@lemm.ee -3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Of course a nuclear reactor needs maintenance and thus also produces infrastructure waste. A lot more than a solar cell. But it dwarfs when you divide by watt-hours. Solar cells produce dozens of times more waste per watt-hour, and stuff that's worse to handle too. Nuclear plants are mostly concrete and steel. Solar panels are glass and rare elements that we can't recycle properly yet.

Like, you didn't really think I was just comparing plants to cells did you? The point is, if the whole world goes solar, how many times over can we replace all of it?

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

Solar panels are glass and rare elements that we can't recycle properly yet.

NREL's Solar PV fact sheet on circularity says that conventional solar PV panels have recovery rates of 80-95% given existing recycling infrastructure.

We know how to recycle these things. The fact that we maybe don't do so in a widespread way is because it's still cheaper to throw shit in a landfill or incinerator.

[-] TheBlackLounge@lemm.ee 2 points 21 hours ago

95% doesn't mean you can turn 100 old panels into 95 new panels. The 5% is cobalt and stuff, that needs to be mined over and over. It's great that we have such rates but we're not really lacking in glass.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Nuclear plants are mostly concrete and steel.

???

You realize the above is true for basically any building, right? That that's a crazy metric to judge any maintenance effort by? Total weight of the building and then everything in it?

Do datacenters not have replaceable parts because they are mainly concrete and steel? Sure, they may have 10,000 servers that all need to be fixed and replaced constantly but since a datacenter is mostly concrete and steel, it doesn't matter because it's not much by total mass of the datacenter? Same goes for airports, factories, on and on.

I guess if you plonk thousands of maintenance heavy devices into a large enough building then weigh the whole structure, the percentage of the structure that has to be serviced goes down, making overall (by weight) maintenance go down. Airplanes need to be fixed? They weigh basically nothing compared to airports, so "tada!" no they dont!

Skipping over your bizarre metric, solar cell recycling is hitting 95%. That is again, something that isn't relevant with modern panels for 30-50+ years, as they will still be producing 70-80% of their rated power at that time. That's easily enough power to just leave them in use.

[-] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

Lol and the commenter above you is forgetting about the aluminum of the PV module's frame, as well as stainless steel used for the racking. Those things are super easy to recycle.

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

Ehh, concrete is very polluting, and nuclear plants need a lot of it. It's not gonna get recycled either. I thought this was obvious. Dunno how you thought that was a dunk.

But we can keep building them. It'll always be expensive, but we don't need much rare material.

I was hoping I'd see cobalt etc in your link, but still not then... For solar cells we need that 5% to be mined over and over. 50 years is nothing if you're talking about renewables. Might as well not care about sustainability at all if you're not talking another 5000 years.

[-] Enkrod@feddit.org 1 points 17 hours ago

Cobalt is more abundant in the earths crust than thorium or uranium by an order of magnitude.

[-] TheBlackLounge@lemm.ee 1 points 16 hours ago

And we need several orders of magnitude more of it per Wh. We'll run out of sand to make cement to build reactors before we run out of uranium.

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:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

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.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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.