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.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 28 points 4 days 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 4 days 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 4 days ago (7 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 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (7 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:

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 102 points 5 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 32 points 4 days ago (5 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 4 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)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 37 points 4 days ago (12 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 (12 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 30 points 4 days ago (26 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 4 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 4 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 (24 replies)
[–] john89@lemmy.ca 23 points 4 days ago

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.

I encourage you to take a look at any infrastructure project.

Going over budget and past deadlines is normal.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] oce@jlai.lu 133 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (29 children)

For additional context, one of the reason for the delay and cost increase was the absurdly complex design due to French and German companies trying to collaborate on a new design as Germany was turning anti-nuclear, which culminated with Germany deciding to stop nuclear energy after the Fukushima Daiichi event.
Another big reason is the knowledge loss due to almost one generation without any reactor built in between.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 41 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (28 children)

Now do Georgia's Vogtle reactors 3 and 4, which came in at 34 billion for 2 x 1200mw plants, 21 billion over the original 14 billion estimate, and took over 14 years to build, 8 years behind schedule.

Im glad these powerplants finally got built. They will help, but nuclear is just not reasonable anymore. Its a slow, expensive tech, especially when we are making such leaps and bonds with solar/battery.

[–] oce@jlai.lu 37 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (17 children)

Even if wind and solar make huge progress, they will likely never be as efficient regarding raw materials efficiency and land use. Land use is the main contributor to biodiversity loss.

I don't think peremptory opinions about technologies are going to help. We should use what ever technology is the most reasonable and sustainable for each specific location.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 49 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

Total land used for all power to be supplied by solar would be a hilariously tiny percentage of land, so this just reads like a solar version of "its killing birds" to me.

Agrivoltaics also side steps this non issue, as interlacing solar panels into farm land increases yields for many crops while making efficent use of space that's already spoiled any biodiversity. Can you do that with a nuclear reactor?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 25 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] Lennny@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 days ago

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

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days 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 days ago (1 children)

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..."

[–] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 45 points 5 days ago (8 children)

Olkiluoto unit 3 took 18 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant?wprov=sfti1

It’s the same French EPR tech and the whole project was plagued with mistakes because the French wanted to cut corners and just get it built as fast as possible.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 24 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like pretty much every software project I've ever worked on

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] uis@lemm.ee 7 points 4 days 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 ›