660

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

submitted 1 day ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

226 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.”

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] swag_money@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

fuck yeah

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 15 hours ago

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.

[-] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago

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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

Therein lies the problem.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago

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

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

[Star Wars meme]

Princess(?): 12 years of extra safety and sustainability, right?

Young Darth(?):

Princess: Right?

Darth:

[-] sit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 18 hours ago

Good news!

[-] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 100 points 1 day ago

At least this one is on the coast so it can still run when the rivers dry up.

But holy shitsnacks 3½ times slower than planned and 4 times more expensive. No wonder no new nuclear power plants have been built in a generation when the ones coming online now were all delayed by a generation.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 27 points 21 hours ago

As others have mentioned, it isn't for a practical reason. Nuclear is not that difficult to build. Look at China. Certain groups (funded by dirty energy companies) have pushed an idea that nuclear isn't safe and had more and more bureaucracy and regulations pushed onto it. Sure, some is needed, as it's also needed for other sources. Nuclear has been strategically handicapped though because they know it'd destroy their business if it's able to compete on a level playing field.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 19 points 19 hours ago

The most unimaginably, but historically stupid thing was "green" activists protesting against nuclear power and for coal and gas.

And yes, nuclear power is very efficient. What makes it most efficient is the ability to very quickly regulate output, the improved logistics, and smaller reliance on beheading, culture-erasing, genocidal, revisionist savages getting everywhere.

[-] olafurp@lemmy.world 9 points 17 hours ago

Turning a reactor on and off is not as easy. They're designed as baseload power that is meant to run continuously. SMR are the ones that are quick and responsive but those are always a couple of years away.

[-] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago

The ones in service right now are mostly/all designed that way, but that's a design decision rather than an inherent limitation. They cost basically the same to run whether they're at maximum output or minimum, so they're most cost-effective as base load and if you need responsive output, you can probably build something else for less money. If you ignore that and build one anyway, you only need fast motors on the control rods and the output can be changed as quickly as throttling gas turbines, but there's no need for that if you know you're just building for base load.

[-] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 16 points 19 hours ago

That said, now that solar and wind are cheaper, conservative politicians are finally pushing for nuclear, because 17 more years of building at 4 times the budget means more fossil fuels in the meantime compared with spending those government funds on solar and wind.

load more comments (22 replies)

[-] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 33 points 23 hours ago

Some anti nuclear groups do everything they can to slow down nuclear builds, putting as many road blocks in the way as possible. Then when it's slow they say: see, building nuclear plants is slow!

[-] Akasazh@feddit.nl 11 points 20 hours ago

Did the anti nuclear people inflate the cost fourfold, too?

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 15 points 19 hours ago

Yes, impeding something is ultimately an increase in cost. That's how it works.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago

Politics are part of the system though. But if strategic supply of oil, gas, coal from undemocratic regimes was simply off the table, constitutionally forbidden and all that, I think nuclear energy would suddenly become more competitive. Because the financing of such groups would suffer.

[-] john89@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 day ago

No wonder no new nuclear power plants have been built in a generation when the ones coming online now were all delayed by a generation.

I encourage you to take a look at any infrastructure project.

Going over budget and past deadlines is normal.

load more comments (14 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024

660 points (99.1% liked)

World News

39371 readers

2350 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.