8 ms·

In France, the last construction is Flamanville EPR. It is at least 5 times over budget and 15 years late https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_P

by tatref 1y ago

In France, the last construction is Flamanville EPR. It is at least 5 times over budget and 15 years late https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl...

tuetuopay 1y ago
We’ve had our share of anti-nuclear activists in France. The project got endlessly stalled, with shifting legislative grounds, and general opposition. Also, the general inefficiency and incompetence from Areva meant this was a match made in heaven (or hell, depends) to get nearly infinite delay.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  Flamanville 3 failed because of screwups in the design and construction. What you're blaming the opposition for is exposing that and holding the nuclear people responsible. How dare they, right? /s
  - natmaka 1y ago
    > Flamanville 3 failed because of screwups in the design and construction Indeed, and it is so undeniable that it is the official conclusion. Source (French): https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/media/organes-parlementaires/commissions-permanentes/developpement-durable/rapport-epr-flamanville-folz https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/media/organes-parleme...
natmaka 1y ago
At least 5 times, indeed: it was due to cost 3.3 billion euros, its cost to date is 23.7, it it not running at full power and a major update (reactor cover) is already planned. https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-flamanville-la-cour-des-comptes-estime-le-cout-total-a-23-7-milliards-d-euros_6497010_3234.html https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-fl...
mpweiher 1y ago
And even that absolutely catastrophic nuclear construction project has a better ROI than any German intermittent renewables. After almost 25 years of renewable subsidies. Note: catastrophic nuclear is still better than best renewables.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  Source please. That truly does not make sense given that renewable subsidies are being phased out around the world and renewables are the fastest growing energy source in human history. In contrast nuclear power is backsliding, and the few projects which get green lit have insanely large subsidies attached.
  - mpweiher 1y ago
    > That truly does not make sense Reality doesn't have to make sense to you. > renewable subsidies are being phased out around the world Nope. Countries are trying to phase out renewables subsidies. And failing. Recently, the UK, Denmark and Germany have had offshore-wind sales with exactly zero bids. > fastest growing energy source in human history. People love those delicious subsidies. > In contrast nuclear power is backsliding Nope. > and the few projects which get green lit have insanely large subsidies attached. Only in markets that have been thoroughly distorted by subsidies and other preferential treatment for intermittent renewables.
    - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
      Let’s begin with concluding that you could not find a source for your claims. Instead you go on a tangent hoping to muddy the water. I find it interesting how someone so smart can just lie through their teeth. Now you’re trying to paint the entire renewable industry, solar, storage, onshore wind etc. with the paint brush of off-shore wind. The German and Danish auctions were negative bid auctions. To explain what that means: companies were asked to pay for the privilege to build off shore wind at a set very low CFD. Those delicious subsidies right?!? Might even call them negative subsidies! Given recent interest rate hikes and increased cost for construction materials off shore wind is right on the cusp of viability. Other projects like this one in Germany moves forward without any subsidies. https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/pressreleases/2025/vattenfall-builds-germanys-largest-offshore-wind-farm https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/pressreleases/2... What you of course don’t mention is that the recent interest rate hikes and increases in construction costs impacts nuclear power far more than off-shore wind and other renewables. So someone actually knowledgeable in the topic would not promote nuclear power as the alternative. So again. Please stop lying and misrepresenting cherry picked stats. You know better.

by tatref 1y ago

tuetuopay 1y ago

We’ve had our share of anti-nuclear activists in France. The project got endlessly stalled, with shifting legislative grounds, and general opposition. Also, the general inefficiency and incompetence from Areva meant this was a match made in heaven (or hell, depends) to get nearly infinite delay.

pfdietz 1y ago
Flamanville 3 failed because of screwups in the design and construction. What you're blaming the opposition for is exposing that and holding the nuclear people responsible. How dare they, right? /s
- natmaka 1y ago
  > Flamanville 3 failed because of screwups in the design and construction Indeed, and it is so undeniable that it is the official conclusion. Source (French): https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/media/organes-parlementaires/commissions-permanentes/developpement-durable/rapport-epr-flamanville-folz https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/media/organes-parleme...

natmaka 1y ago

At least 5 times, indeed: it was due to cost 3.3 billion euros, its cost to date is 23.7, it it not running at full power and a major update (reactor cover) is already planned. https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-flamanville-la-cour-des-comptes-estime-le-cout-total-a-23-7-milliards-d-euros_6497010_3234.html https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-fl...

mpweiher 1y ago

And even that absolutely catastrophic nuclear construction project has a better ROI than any German intermittent renewables. After almost 25 years of renewable subsidies. Note: catastrophic nuclear is still better than best renewables.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
Source please. That truly does not make sense given that renewable subsidies are being phased out around the world and renewables are the fastest growing energy source in human history. In contrast nuclear power is backsliding, and the few projects which get green lit have insanely large subsidies attached.
- mpweiher 1y ago
  > That truly does not make sense Reality doesn't have to make sense to you. > renewable subsidies are being phased out around the world Nope. Countries are trying to phase out renewables subsidies. And failing. Recently, the UK, Denmark and Germany have had offshore-wind sales with exactly zero bids. > fastest growing energy source in human history. People love those delicious subsidies. > In contrast nuclear power is backsliding Nope. > and the few projects which get green lit have insanely large subsidies attached. Only in markets that have been thoroughly distorted by subsidies and other preferential treatment for intermittent renewables.
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    Let’s begin with concluding that you could not find a source for your claims. Instead you go on a tangent hoping to muddy the water. I find it interesting how someone so smart can just lie through their teeth. Now you’re trying to paint the entire renewable industry, solar, storage, onshore wind etc. with the paint brush of off-shore wind. The German and Danish auctions were negative bid auctions. To explain what that means: companies were asked to pay for the privilege to build off shore wind at a set very low CFD. Those delicious subsidies right?!? Might even call them negative subsidies! Given recent interest rate hikes and increased cost for construction materials off shore wind is right on the cusp of viability. Other projects like this one in Germany moves forward without any subsidies. https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/pressreleases/2025/vattenfall-builds-germanys-largest-offshore-wind-farm https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/pressreleases/2... What you of course don’t mention is that the recent interest rate hikes and increases in construction costs impacts nuclear power far more than off-shore wind and other renewables. So someone actually knowledgeable in the topic would not promote nuclear power as the alternative. So again. Please stop lying and misrepresenting cherry picked stats. You know better.