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

World News

39385 readers
2312 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.”

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago
[–] swag_money@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago
[–] etuomaala@sopuli.xyz 14 points 3 days ago (4 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 3 days ago (7 children)

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

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (21 children)

Renewables are far cheaper and can be built faster and if they malfunction, no one is in danger.

France already has enough Nuclear to deal with no-sun and no-wind phases (if they work properly, which is the other problem with nuclear energy in France)...

So, there is literally no reason to waste tax payer money and time like this and to force yourself to import material from Russia. Just build renewables until we get fusion energy...

[–] Argonne@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It's not either or situation, I hate this logic. Build both renewable and nuclear when the sun don't shine. Nuclear has far more stability than renewables

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 14 points 3 days ago

With PBR reactors, nobody is in danger if it breaks down, either. The pebble bed collapses, and fission stops.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Renewables are far cheaper and can be built faster and if they malfunction, no one is in danger.

No, that's not true. Solar workers fall off roofs and wind workers get hit on the head with falling turbines at about the same rate that people get cancer from nuclear, per joule generated.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›