The opening of the European Pressurized Reactor in Flamanville comes 12 years late on the initial schedule.

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.”

  • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
    0·
    17 days ago

    Nuclear isn’t safe.

    By amount of power generated, compared to other sources, yes, it is, and it’s safer now than ever in the past. The only source of power safer is large-scale PV.

    https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-safest-and-deadliest-energy-sources/

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/

    If you want to disagree, provide some sources. Sure, some disasters have happened, but even those haven’t been as bad as portrayed and the risks have been significantly mitigated, to the point where it’s practically impossible to happen again outside of very specific circumstances. The fact you can’t eat mushrooms in some places in negligible compared to the entire world being damaged by coal and other dirty energy.

    Nuclear can only work because it is heavily subsidized.

    This is total BS. It’s only unprofitable for a few reasons only nuclear has to deal with. They have a lot more regulations and stuff they have to pay for. For example, all nuclear waste is contained and stored by nuclear power generators (in the western world at least). They have to pay for this. No other power source has to pay this cost. They just release the waste and it’s a negative externality everyone else has to deal with, but not them.

    For a visualization of this, check out this graph from wikipedia:

    (Edit: embed didn’t work for me at least, but this one.)

    The cost of Nuclear went up over time, despite the technology advancing. Why? Because more regulations were passed to force it to cost more. That’s the only reasonable conclusion. It didn’t get more difficult to perform nuclear fission. It should, at minimum, be cheaper than coal and offshore wind.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        17 days ago

        At least 57 accidents and severe incidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and over 56 severe incidents have occurred in the USA. Relatively few accidents have involved fatalities, with roughly 74 casualties being attributed to accidents and half of these were those involved in the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

        Yeah, this doesn’t say what you think it says. More people fall off of rooftops installing solar panels than casualties are caused by nuclear accidents.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
            0·
            17 days ago

            If you’re anti-nuke, you’re probably already simpling for oil, gas, and coal.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
                0·
                16 days ago

                Also, fuck solar and wind because the waste they require right? Fuck batteries because they cause a lot of pollution to create!

                I can say fuck all kinds of things. At least I pretend to have a reason. You can’t even be bothered to do that.

                • WhatYouNeed@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  0·
                  16 days ago

                  Solar and wind don’t produce anywhere as much waste. And the land involved can be easily repurposed, unlike ex-nuclear sites which cannot. Not without bilions being spent and years in clean up investment.

                  Hey, here’s an opinion for you: fuck you. Was that pretend? I will never support nuclear.