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.”

  • Forester@yiffit.netEnglish
    223·
    2 days ago

    It is if your intention is to not introduce carbon into the atmosphere over the 60 year life’s lifespan to 90 year lifespan of the power plant

    • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.comEnglish
      77·
      2 days ago

      Then, the priority should still be renewables, because they are far cheaper, can be build faster and if they malfunction, no one is in danger. France has enough Nuclear to deal with no-sun and no-wind phases (if they work fine, which is the other problem with nuclear energy in France)…

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        32·
        2 days ago

        We don’t have enough resources yet for all the renewables we’ll need. Like there simply isn’t enough copper being mined fast enough.

        Nuclear needs to be part of the solution.

        • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.comEnglish
          32·
          1 day ago

          Prices of renewables are dropping for years. If building them becomes difficult because of missing materials, the prices would rise, which is not happening at the moment. Why not just building renewables as long as it’s the far cheaper solution?

          • David J. Shourabi Porcel@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            22 hours ago

            If building them becomes difficult because of missing materials, the prices would rise, which is not happening at the moment.

            Solar panels have indeed become cheaper and cheaper, and you are right to argue that the materials used to build solar panels are priced in. However, solar requires some infrastructure besides the panels themselves, such as inverters and storage, and that infrastructure needs additional materials, some of which are expensive. Copper, for instance, surged in price in 2020, and there is not enough investment to expand mining operations despite the great profits it has been yielding. This is an ongoing saga in the mining industry, with BHP attempting to take over Anglo American in part for its copper portfolio.

            I am not arguing against solar; I just think it cannot be scaled to the extent necessary to cover most of our current and projected future electricity consumption. To get rid of fossil fuels and generate ever more electricity for EVs, the AI black hole and goddamn cryptocurrencies, I think we will need nuclear. I wish we would build more public transportation, break from the AI spell and ban cryptocurrencies, but I’m not hopeful. In any case, the pace solar has picked up these past years is very encouraging and we should do what we can to push it further.

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.worldEnglish
      27·
      2 days ago

      Great! At the current rate it’ll only take them 200 more years to replace all their old time bombs.