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
      161·
      3 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
          143·
          3 days ago

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

          • WhatYouNeed@lemmy.worldEnglish
            214·
            2 days ago

            Fuck nuclear.

            Fuck oil.

            Fuck LPG.

            Fuck coal.

            Edit: wow, so many simping for the four above.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
              92·
              3 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
                29·
                3 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.

      • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        39·
        3 days ago

        When people fall off a rooftop, you don’t have to make an exclusion zone around it for hundreds of years.

          • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            15·
            3 days ago

            I think that’s the point here. OP is claiming that nuclear is overburdened by regulations, which normally protects people. But when they go wrong or aren’t followed, it changes the map.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
              9·
              3 days ago

              That OP is me. Yeah, you’re right. Some are required. The same for any other power source. Coal, for example, constantly sprays radioactive waste into the sky, and they aren’t burdened by it. Nuclear is singled out, and that’s because it’s a risk to existing industries. It isn’t so burdened out of actual need.

              • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                51·
                3 days ago

                That’s why I’m hoping for the smaller modular designs that can be certified and studied very well.

                • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
                  6·
                  3 days ago

                  Both are good. Usually scale gives better efficiency, though nuclear is already so efficient that it isn’t strictly required. I’m in favor of moving forward with both, and we should be getting the government to support the development, at least by removing unnecessary barriers that are there just to prop up dirty energy a little longer.