this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
725 points (99.1% liked)

World News

39395 readers
2105 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
 

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
[–] etuomaala@sopuli.xyz 14 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Seems like a waste investing so much in the U-235 cycle. Aren't the thorium and U-238 cycles better? Like, more compact footprint, simpler design, more scalable, doesn't need to be located near a large body of water etc.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 16 points 4 days ago (1 children)

France doesn't care about fuel cycles which don't produce plutonium.

[–] etuomaala@sopuli.xyz 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

The U-235 fuel cycle produces way more plutionium than the U-238 cycle, though.

EDIT: Aw, fuck, I typed it wrong. U-238 produces more plutonium than U-235. My criticism still stands.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 days ago

That's what they said

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

I know just about noting about nuclear fuel cycles, but yes, more plutonium sounds exactly like what the French want. They have an arsenal to feed.

[–] gaael@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The military nuclear is the main reason behind our civilian nuclear infrastructure, which was planned during the cold war. It looks like once per century the military can have an unintended positive effect, yay.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

With the side effect of almost destroying the world multiple times.

[–] gaael@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way advocating for military nuclear (or even for anything military).

[–] raoul@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 4 days ago

France stopped production of military fuel 30 years ago.

The current goal is about recycling the existing nuclear waste, to reduce the need for long term storage and natural uranium.

[–] passiveaggressivesonar@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Thorium is still umproven, and was even more so in 2007. Until (or if?) the Chinese TMSR LF1 really takes off no private company will risk trying a thorium reactor

[–] red@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)
[–] etuomaala@sopuli.xyz 1 points 18 hours ago

Extracting its latent energy value in a cost-effective manner remains a challenge, and will require considerable R&D investment.

The physics are sound. It's the economics that are apparently still a problem.