this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2026
299 points (90.7% liked)

Technology

87337 readers
4010 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Twongo@lemmy.ml 82 points 3 days ago (7 children)

not this again...

sure nuclear WAS fine, french power plants are getting old, can't handle oncoming increasing heatwaves and regularly have major accidents. source (german)

in the age of wind and solar and cheap batteries it is not necessary and much cheaper to build renewables.

also: french nuclear energy is only cheap because it gets heavily subsidized. a kwh of renewables is about 7ct, a kwh of nuclear is in reality about 49ct

[–] Waryle@jlai.lu 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

french power plants are getting old

Most of them still have 30+ years of life in them

can't handle oncoming increasing heatwaves

Not this again... French nuclear plants has not being stopped because they can't handle heatwaves, that's plain bullshit, but because of ecological precaution, which on top of that, seems to be useless

and regularly have major accidents

Also plain bullshit

source(german)

That explains a lot of you take your sources from anti-nuclear organizations

in the age of wind and solar and cheap batteries it is not necessary and much cheaper to build renewables.

It's not the age of wind and solar. We're still in the age of coal (35% of electricity) and gas (22,5%). If we talk about energy at whole, it's even worse : 30% is petrol, coal 26% and gas 23%. If you think that solar and wind will stay cheap when everybody will compete for the large amounts of metal and other sources needed to build them, and when we will run out of petrol to mine and produce them all, you're lying to yourself. Nuclear in comparison require very little resource to build and to operate them.

And that's without taking into account a basic fact: we don't have enough room to build enough STEPs and we don't have enough resources to build enough batteries to run entire countries on solar and wind. Looking at costs in 2026 is just meaningless when we're actually talking about science fiction.

also: french nuclear energy is only cheap because it gets heavily subsidized. a kwh of renewables is about 7ct, a kwh of nuclear is in reality about 49ct

Another bullshit: EDF has been making billions of benefits out of nuclear every year for decades (except in 2022). They even made 10+ billions of euros of net benefits the last 3 years.

And EDF is subsidizing France, not the contrary: the State forced EDF to take a huge part of the cost of the Bouclier Tarifaire, and EDF paid billions of euros of dividends to the State as well

[–] Twongo@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago

i'm just trying to be brief: the amount of space for golfing far exceeds what is currently being used for wind and solar combined. Space is not an issue and not a real concern. Every free roof can handle solar panels, it is essentially unused space and it bothers no one.

Also what's wrong with using an activist site as a source if their information is factual?

then the heatwave thingy: those "precautions" will happen several times. Rivers are getting so dry that european countries now lifted the sunday-driving ban for trucks because shipping isn't reliable.

In summers we produce so much electricity that the price per kwh goes negative atp and we actually have to turn off power plants remotely (which is easy to set up, i do this for a living) - if we build enough infrastructure to have overproduction in winters and enough storage we're set.

idk why people get so defensive and emotional over nuclear if there's just cleaner and cheaper options on hand

[–] odioLemmy@lemmy.world 31 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Don't forget they have been basically stealing the required Uranium from African Sahel countries like Niger for decades.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago

Kazakhstan: 30%
Niger: 25%
Canada: 20%
Australia: 15%
Russia: 10%

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And France is blocking importing solar energy from Spain. Also France has to do some shenanigans in Africa to secure their uranium supply.

Sure nuclear is far better than fossil fuels in terms of global warming, but it has similar geopolitical problems to the oil industry. It makes sense to go to solar and wind, but there's a nuclear industry that's doing the same kinds of things the oil industry does to block it.

[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

"It makes sense to go to solar and wind" 🙄

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Is this the anti-nuclear talking point now?

After decades of, "we cannot do it," it's now, "we should have done it before, it's not a good idea anymore"

Fuck right off

[–] Imke@feddit.org 22 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (11 children)

Why do you think the people who said that "we cant do it" are the same people who now say "now its too late"? The pro and contra points to nuclear energy are pretty obvious. Also obvoius is, that these pros and cons are predestinated for disagreement. Also its obvious that opinions can change, on the one hand people maybe start priorize low carbon enegry production, on the other hand rivers for cooling are drying, a few accidents happened, and the price for nuclear energy is now pretty high while the price for renewables and batteries is dropping. We had a lot of change in circumstances in the last years and decades to discuss so saying "fuck off" is pretty pathetic in this case if you ask me

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

What is extra frustrating is I have been hearing "we should have done it before, it’s not a good idea anymore” for literal decades now.

Best time to build is 10 years ago. Second best time is today.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] call_me_xale@lemmy.zip 53 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

It's like I've always said, "The best time to build a nuclear power plant is fifty years ago."

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The second best time is forty nine years ago

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ozymandias1688@feddit.org 38 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Which unfortunately now shuts down because the reactors cannot cope with the heatwaves. Turns out that no river = no cooling = no energy production.

[–] Womble@piefed.world 32 points 3 days ago (3 children)

image

Turns out, even when you have to throttle them down slightly due to drought, having a large amount of available nuclear power, like France and Sweden do, means you emit an awful lot less carbon.

[–] Ozymandias1688@feddit.org 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Have you read about the Paks NPP? Not throttled, shut down. They even tried sinking barges in the Danube to raise levels enough to keep it going.

[–] Womble@piefed.world 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

And yet, despite that, France still has some of the cleanest electricity in the world with prices in line with the rest of Europe and exported about 10TWhrs of electricity during July.

I agree that downtime is bad, but I don't think abandoning nuclear to go all in on solar which has a minimum downtime of 50% or wind which has extended periods of <10% is a solution to that. Given that we need electrification to replace fossil fuels in transport and heating over the next few decades to prevent catastrophic climate change, the only reasonable course IMO is to build out as much as possible of nuclear and renewables.

[–] skyfex@lemmy.zip 17 points 3 days ago

The problem is that building nuclear is slower and more expensive than just building renewables. It made some sense when labor was cheaper. But it doesn’t anymore.

Yeah we need to electrify transportation, heating, fertiliser and steel production. What you need to consider is that these all have excellent synergies with renewable energy. Making fertiliser from nuclear power never made sense and never will make sense. But with solar power it’s just now barely cheap enough to make sense. There are already plants up and running. And you then get a huge amount of capacity to balancer solar/wind for free as well. The same goes for transportation, steel production and especially heat. We already have heat batteries in production. Both super high temperature ones to replace fossil fuels in industry, and medium temperature ones that can store energy for months to shift energy from summer to winter for district heating systems.

None of this makes economic sense with nuclear (well, EVs make sense still).

I have nothing against nuclear. I love the tech. But it’s simply dead. And no, SMRs is not gonna save it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] encelado748@feddit.org 34 points 3 days ago (2 children)

False,

Reactor production is throttled down to preserve the river environment, not because they cannot cool themselves. Only 18% reduction on the worst event.

Dismissing the biggest low carbon energy producer because 1970 engineers did not account for the unknown temperature extremes 20 years after the predicted lifespan of the reactor is silly.

[–] benjirenji@slrpnk.net 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Unknown temperature extremes? We knew about climate change for much longer. And France's nuclear reactors have an average age of less than 40 years.

[–] encelado748@feddit.org 7 points 3 days ago

Yes, unknown. You do not care about when the reactor went online, but when the reactor design was finalized. This happened with CP0 design in 1970, 4 years before the messmer plan.

We knew about climate change in 1970, but we lacked reliable models and computational power to create good predictions at that time. Climate change was an hot scientific debate, not an applied principle in civil engineering design.

The only reactor not part of the messmer plan (1974) that was throttled down is the Chooz B on the Meuse river. In this case it is more of a political issue: under 1998 treaty between Belgium and France, the plant must curtail power if the river flow drop. Not as safety measure, but to preserve downstream flow to Belgium. This was not taken into account in the reactor design. The operation of the plant was restricted retroactively. The Chooz B plant uses evaporative towers to minimize heat discharge.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Miaou@jlai.lu 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Lots of people shilling for Big Oil in this comment section

[–] marius@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah, everyone support your local mom and pops nuclear power plant. Best if they run on 100% home grown uranium

[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

You just have to expect it. I wear bug spray.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

yeah and until recently they imported all their uranium from states like niger which is why it took till 2023 for niger to kick out the last french troops from its country.

which is interesting because solar became the cheapest form of electricity in 2020 and france let go of niger shortly after that.


How dependent is France on Niger's uranium?

The military coup in Niger has raised concerns about uranium mining in the country by the French group Orano, and the consequences for France's energy independence.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 36 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We should have been deploying nuclear much earlier and then augment with renewables. Once energy storage technology matured more you could phase out nuclear plants.

[–] gedfromgont@piefed.ca 23 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That would've required long term planning though and what if in the end it came out that coal isn't so bad at all, huh, what then??? /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] iturnedintoanewt@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

You mean the same nuclear power plants they need to shut down every other week because the river water they use as cooling intake is too warm to actually cool them down? They're pretty useless nowadays.

https://interestingengineering.com/energy/france-nuclear-reactors-shut-record-heatwave

[–] overstep8556@jlai.lu 15 points 2 days ago

You should read what you link, it's the opposite. They are actually paused to not heat the river up.

[–] Melusine@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

To people talking about subsides, that was always the point, to have energy production as a public service. I would structuraly never trust a private company with nuclear (actually I feel like trusting any one no matter the sector is risky)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

...That they have to shut down all the time because of droughts. And they basically need to rebuild half of it, because the maintenance cost is so high, it is constantly pushed into the future.

Few emissions? Yeah. Good? Nope.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 14 points 3 days ago

* Sustained through government subsidies to create/maintain their nukes and submarines.

[–] m8052@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Still massive exporter of electricity. I wonder how much coal and gas would burn in Europe if French npp weren't there.

[–] Sniatch@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago

They have to export because you can't just shut down a Nuclear Reactor. So they sell it for cheap to other countries. It would be more expensive for them to shut down a reactor because they produce too much. The other countrys gladly take the cheap energy. But france doesn't really make profit with this, it's just less expensive for them.

load more comments
view more: next ›