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

World News

39387 readers
3051 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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


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
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (24 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 16 points 2 days ago (1 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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's not necessarily an either-or situation, but when it comes to allocating public budgets, one can certainly come at the cost of the other.

This is generally what people talk about when advocating focus on renewables over nuclear.

I personally have no problem with privately funded and insured nuclear - if you're able to swing that, then all the power in the world to you. The issue at hand is that nuclear fundamentally fails here - it's too expensive to build and insure (not to mention the energy it produces being more expensive than its alternatives), hence public funding and insurance is essentially a prerequisite.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

There are other considerations too, like diversification, nuclear know how, load vs on-demand, local geoeconomics, etc

load more comments (22 replies)