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

World News

39401 readers
2264 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
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (5 children)

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.

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 24 points 4 days ago (1 children)

There is around a century's with of uranium with current mines.

But right now uranium is very cheap so most of it is "wasted". There is plenty of way of recycling used nuclear fuel or improving the productivity of uranium enrichment.

If uranium supply starts to actually be a problem there is a way to "create" more nuclear fuel: breeder reactor.

With breeder reactor France could fuel their reactor for millennia only with the depleted uranium they have in stock (when enriching uranium you end up with a tiny account of enriched uranium on one side and depleted uranium on the other, France is keeping the depleted uranium in stock specifically for this scenario)

source (french)

[–] Zink@programming.dev 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Yeah or put another way: All that nuclear waste we occasionally talk about burying under a mountain has something like more than 90% of its energy left.

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago

No.

They speak about it in the article I linked (in French unfortunately). The waste that we talk about burying is what's left AFTER extracting all the components that could be reused.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I have always wondered how it's stored... always imagined like 55 Gal drums in some Simpsonsesque way, but that doesn't really make sense... but maybe it does?

[–] Zink@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Like that but way bigger. The fuel is still in solid form and stored in giant heavy dry casks that essentially armor that fuel from the outside world.

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

Also encased in glass, and both the cask and the glass can stop the radiations on their own iirc.

[–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's based on what can actually be used.

The world's present measured resources of uranium (6.1 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium

(Note this is a *pro-*nuclear power organization.)

New technology may change that. We were once told that the oil in the Canadian tar sands was not economical enough to extract and now they're extracting it. The paper also discusses the possibility of thorium as a fuel source, although it has yet to see commercial viability.

As-is, and with current reactors, we don't have much we can use. Relying on new technology to change that could be a poor gamble.

[–] Blackmist 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

When I was at school in the early 90s I was told oil would run out in 30 years, yet here we are, 30 years later and not only did it not run out, but people aren't even talking about it running out.

100 years is a long time, and I suspect that nuclear will seem very old fashioned by then, and today's power stations will have been long since decommissioned. If we're not getting close to 100% of our power from wind and solar and tidal by then, we'll be shafted anyway.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

When I was at school in the early 90s I was told oil would run out in 30 years

No you weren't. If you were, then you had a terrible teacher.

What you're probably thinking about "peak oil." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

[–] Minnels@lemm.ee 6 points 4 days ago

Nah man. I also heard this back when I was a kid in the 90s. It came from our news channels, not teachers in school.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

I literally covered this in my post.

[–] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] AlexisFR@jlai.lu 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world -5 points 4 days ago
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Therein lies the problem.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago

You probably read about U-235, but yes. There are soviet BNs, their chinese clone, french experimental reactor and I think topic reactor, which can work on plutonium, which is side-product in regular reactors.