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.”

  • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
    144·
    2 days ago

    This is a poor argument. You just did what you explicitly should not do with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) results.

    The ISO 14044 specifically requires life cycle assessment to include all relevant impact categories. In particular in comparative analysis it is crucial to not single out any one category, but look at the impact on the endpoints, e.g. ecosystems or human health.

    https://www.h2.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Einrichtungen/Hochschulbibliothek/Downloaddateien/DIN_EN_ISO_14044.pdf

    See page 37 onwards.

    Here is the full LCA study, that you drew only one category from

    https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL March 2022.pdf

    Look at the Endpoint indicators, like “Lifecycle impact on ecosystems, per MWh, in pointes”, “Life cycle impacts on ecosystems, no climate change,per MWh, in pointes”, “Life cycle impacts on human health,per MWh, in pointes” etc.

    Nuclear power does fare well in these categories, but often only marginally different to Wind Power and Solar Power. It certainly does not offset the cost difference, when you also have to include the opportunity costs of running coal or gas plants longer.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.luEnglish
      109·
      2 days ago

      This is a poor argument. You just did what you explicitly should not do when engaging in a discussion: building a straw man argument and cherry picking a part of an answer.

      I highlighted two rarely mentioned and non-intuitive points about nuclear vs renewables, I bet a few readers learned about it. But, I didn’t say renewables shouldn’t be used. My conclusion says the opposite, don’t have blocked opinions about technologies, use whatever is most adapted to the location, if it’s renewable, that’s great.