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.”

  • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
    153·
    2 days ago

    had money not been saved

    This just serves as a lesson to the “failsafe technology” crowd: That also involves failsafe humans. Those, to the best of my knowledge, have yet to be invented.

    Oh and relatedly some German reactor ran for decades without a backup power generator. It was there, present, physically, that is, but noone bothered to check whether it actually worked. Merkel justified her flip-flop on the nuclear exit (shortly before Fukushima, she delayed the exit that SPD+Greens had decided on) by saying, more or less, “If the Japanese can’t do it we can’t do it either” but if she had been paying attention, it should’ve been clear that we couldn’t do it. That became clear when the first SPD+Green coalition moved responisibity for nuclear safety from the ministry for economy to that for the environment, run by a Green, and they made a breakfast out of all that shoddy work that the operators had done. Oh the containment vessel is riveted… figures they put the rivets in the wrong way. Shut it down, have fun re-doing every single one of them before starting it up again.

    Thus, my conclusion: The only people you can trust to run nuclear reactors safely are people who don’t want nuclear reactors to exist in the first place.

    • ubergeek@lemmy.todayEnglish
      31·
      2 days ago

      Human failsafes have been invented. Every nuclear silo has one: two, independent people, with unique keys, have to both agree to launch. Otherwise, it fails safe, and no launch. Even with valid launch orders.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        2 days ago

        Are you trying to tell us it’s impossible for these two humans to fail at the same time? There’s some physical law preventing them from receiving false information and acting on it? They can’t be manipulated or forced to do things they don’t want to?

        That’s the kind of failsafe GP was talking about. Not “99% safe except for rare circumstances”, but actually 100% safe.

          • FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            2 days ago

            The tower of playing cards I built this morning also hasn’t failed yet, so logically we should link nuclear launch codes to it collapsing. After all, it seems to be a perfect system.

            Or you could try actually thinking about the point GP was making.

            • ubergeek@lemmy.todayEnglish
              31·
              2 days ago

              So, you have done a trial of one, fir a few hrs, with no testing.

              Other human failsafe have been repeatedly tested, thousands of times over, over decades.

              Hell, the simple Deadman switch is a human failsafe: hold this latch, otherwise machine stops…

                • ubergeek@lemmy.todayEnglish
                  21·
                  1 day ago

                  No, not at all. You are missing the point, I think. Human failsafes do work. They are even easier to make and more effective if you remove capitalism from the equation, though.

                  • FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    21·
                    1 day ago

                    Wow, okay, you’re really missing the point.

                    Something is either 100% failsafe, or it isn’t. If there is even a tiny chance that something will fail, it isn’t failsafe in the context of GPs point. We’re not talking about “realistic chances” or something here - we’re talking about actual physical laws.

                    Humans aren’t failsafe, because they’ve failed plenty of times, and can still fail plenty of times. Sure, no accidental nuclear launches have been done, but that doesn’t mean they can’t happen. Both of the humans involved can develop a psychosis at the same time, at which point the system has failed. This even being a possibility means that the system isn’t failsafe. It doesn’t matter whether it already happened or will ever happen.

                    The reason we’re taking this strict distinction is that human failsafes have failed plenty of times. People in Germany got to know this very well through Chernobyl. There were failsafes in place, and they didn’t work due to human error. That’s why proponents of nuclear energy are focusing on this point - changes in the design of modern nuclear reactors make it literally physically impossible for the same thing to happen. I’m not talking about a 99.999999999% chance that it won’t happen, I’m talking about 100%.

                    Just to be sure, I’ll repeat it again: human failsafes have failed in the past, and humans can fail in every situation. You won’t believe how many people lost fingers, hands or even arms in spite of a dead man switch that should prevent it. There are plenty of examples of systems that, according to you, should be 100% safe, yet they failed. Because humans can fail.