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

World News

39401 readers
3754 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
[–] GenosseFlosse@feddit.org 3 points 3 days 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.

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days 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.

[–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GenosseFlosse@feddit.org 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wow, that's good news! I guess we can just pay residents some rent to store the 4,925 40-foot containers full of ~~nuclear~~ harmless waste in their backyards then. Years of planning from scientists and engineers and millions of spending could have been avoided if the experts would have just read the comments on the internet!

The estimated amount of nuclear waste in Germany after shutting down all nuclear power plants is 29,000 m3 for high-level waste and 300,000 m3 for low- and intermediate-level waste.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/dory2/

That includes individual storage containers, which wouldn't be needed if you oil loving freaks wouldn't have required the most inefficient storage solutions in order to intentionally drive up costs. The actual waste is several orders of magnitude smaller.