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

World News

39385 readers
2229 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.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago

Lets hope this one stays in better condition than their other nuclear plants lol

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Good. Germany made a huge mistake for themselves and for all of Europe in shutting down their nuclear plants.

[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Except they were basically beyond design life.

And every new plant comes decades late and 4x the original budget.

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

But they planned on replacing it with natural gas. Not to mention that it was supposed to be Russian gas. Sweden pays for the shitty decisions in Berlin.

[–] varyingExpertise@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Sweden pays for having not enough inner country power lines. Look at the differences within their various market zones.

Case in point, base load prices for today:

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Funny you mention market zones. They are an eu invention and we are forced to match prices because Germany can't pull they're own weight in the energy market.

Not to mention that the eu mandated market zones only applies when you aren't Germany, because of reasons.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GenosseFlosse@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah, but the decision was made in 2011 after Fukushima, and before the Russian invasion in 2014. At this time it did make sense, gas was much cheaper and Germany still had an has no long term plan to deal with the nuclear waste.

The entirety of all nuclear fuel waste ever produced and that would be produced after 2000 years of fully nuclear energy produce and consumption at current rates wouldn't fill a mid sized van.

The nuclear waste excuse is oil industry propaganda, and you should feel bad for repeating it without getting a paycheck.

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

How does it make sense to compare yourself to a natural disaster that would be impossible on German land? Central Europe doesn't lie on one of the biggest fault lines in the world.

However, if you start talking about putting nuclear plant on Iceland you might rise a few eyebrows.

They didn't stop buying gas until the invasion 2022. Im not even sure that they don't do it now, just cant admit to it publically. And as a swede, i find it incredibly naive to trust any Russian government ever in the history of ever. There has never existed any trust between russia and Sweden/Finland. Only mutual assurance.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

They have cheap Russian gas so who nee...

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago (2 children)

1.6 GW, cool, but everyone knows all you need is 1.21 GW

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nuclear plant construction delayed? Budget overrun? Even in one of the most nuclear developed countries in the world? Wooooow, what a surprise!!

[–] Draegur@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago

Fossil fuel exec calls up his criminal friends in whatever legislative bodies he can reach "hey yeah I need this delayed and I need it to cost more in order to make my own business plans look less stupid and toxic. I don't fucking care how you do it, rubber stamp some no bid contracts for your cousin in law's consulting firm or something. Of course your family can expect some very lucrative careers, incidentally..."

[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 102 points 2 days ago (12 children)

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.

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago (4 children)

4 times budget sounds more than it is. You have to underbid to actually get contracts for construction and then it also depends on what was actually missing in the specification.

Big projects are never on budget because the budget is just an arbitrary number of lowballing the best case estimate

[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Also any project that takes longer than the initial estimate will be overbudget, not only because you are paying local workers for longer (fairly good for the economy) but simply because inflation has happened more since the project started.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zqps@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

... but we make decisions about economic viability on that basis??

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 30 points 2 days ago (25 children)

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 23 points 2 days ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 18 points 2 days 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 (23 replies)
[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 36 points 2 days ago (10 children)

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!

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] uis@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago

its most powerful at 1,600 MW,

Fuck, that's 100 more MW than VVER-1500(project). Or 400 more than VVER-1200(working).

post-Chernobyl

???

is 12 years behind schedule

VVER-1500 is still project for 40 years. Most modern we have now is VVER-TOI (1300 MW).

load more comments
view more: next ›