719
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
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Nuclear isn't safe.

By amount of power generated, compared to other sources, yes, it is, and it's safer now than ever in the past. The only source of power safer is large-scale PV.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-safest-and-deadliest-energy-sources/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/

If you want to disagree, provide some sources. Sure, some disasters have happened, but even those haven't been as bad as portrayed and the risks have been significantly mitigated, to the point where it's practically impossible to happen again outside of very specific circumstances. The fact you can't eat mushrooms in some places in negligible compared to the entire world being damaged by coal and other dirty energy.

Nuclear can only work because it is heavily subsidized.

This is total BS. It's only unprofitable for a few reasons only nuclear has to deal with. They have a lot more regulations and stuff they have to pay for. For example, all nuclear waste is contained and stored by nuclear power generators (in the western world at least). They have to pay for this. No other power source has to pay this cost. They just release the waste and it's a negative externality everyone else has to deal with, but not them.

For a visualization of this, check out this graph from wikipedia:

(Edit: embed didn't work for me at least, but this one.)

The cost of Nuclear went up over time, despite the technology advancing. Why? Because more regulations were passed to force it to cost more. That's the only reasonable conclusion. It didn't get more difficult to perform nuclear fission. It should, at minimum, be cheaper than coal and offshore wind.

[-] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

At least 57 accidents and severe incidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and over 56 severe incidents have occurred in the USA. Relatively few accidents have involved fatalities, with roughly 74 casualties being attributed to accidents and half of these were those involved in the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

Yeah, this doesn't say what you think it says. More people fall off of rooftops installing solar panels than casualties are caused by nuclear accidents.

[-] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone -5 points 1 day ago

When people fall off a rooftop, you don't have to make an exclusion zone around it for hundreds of years.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago

And you don't need to for most nuclear accidents either.

[-] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 1 day ago

I think that's the point here. OP is claiming that nuclear is overburdened by regulations, which normally protects people. But when they go wrong or aren't followed, it changes the map.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago

That OP is me. Yeah, you're right. Some are required. The same for any other power source. Coal, for example, constantly sprays radioactive waste into the sky, and they aren't burdened by it. Nuclear is singled out, and that's because it's a risk to existing industries. It isn't so burdened out of actual need.

[-] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago

That's why I'm hoping for the smaller modular designs that can be certified and studied very well.

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

Both are good. Usually scale gives better efficiency, though nuclear is already so efficient that it isn't strictly required. I'm in favor of moving forward with both, and we should be getting the government to support the development, at least by removing unnecessary barriers that are there just to prop up dirty energy a little longer.

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

World News

39376 readers
1935 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