Hearing “not particularly prone to faults” in context of a nuclear powerplant isn’t exactly comforting :D
No more than any other is fine with me.
Doesn’t feel quite “world news” worthy article.
Context for the news: Olkiluoto 3 is one of the newest nuclear power plants in Finland and originally it was meant to be complete in 2009. It ran in 2021 for the first time and was fully running in 2022 in its test runs. It was operational in 2023-ish?
It has been a huge money sink with the delays in its constructions and constant malfunctions while running it (no danger thanks to safety refulations). Olkiluoto 3’s delays and malfunctions have decreased the citizens’ interest in nuclear energy tremendeously. When it actually runs properly, it is a noticeable margin on Finland’s energy production.
I feel like it’s good world news - some people still have this revulsion to anything nuclear due to trauma from Chernobyl etc… a good example is apparently the entire brain dead nation of Germany which recently fully switched off nuclear power and are now in the middle of a fucking energy crisis.
Nuclear power can certainly be criticized for its cost but it absolutely deserves to be in the conversation about green energy as we take drastic actions to minimize climate crises.
Look into the maintenance costs of Germany’s 1970s reactors before calling an entire nation brain dead.
The cost of nuclear today is high and continues for thousands of years. Cost is the entire problem.
Nuclear power isn’t green, it’s just at the beginning of the cycle where it’s waste is seen as a small problem because there isn’t a lot of it. Like fossil fuels were a century ago.
Unfortunately we don’t have a lot of suitable places to put nuclear waste so the small amount we already have is already causing problems in Europe. The US being a bigger place may get to that point a little later than us. But nuclear waste stores are already oversubscribed in the UK, Germany, and France.
Nuclear power is short sighted.
The money spent should be on renewables and grid storage. Then more efficient heating and insulation.
Not nuclear, not carbon capture.
Proponents of nuclear power never look at the total lifecycle cost of a reactor. In fact it’s usually deliberately hidden.
Nuclear reactors have always been and will always be military technology. They should be funded as military spending.
By all means put a price on carbon so they can get a better price on energy but the military should be funding the reactors they need and dealing with the waste out of their budgets.
it’s also built by a subsidiary of rosatom, if i’m not mistaken
11 million people to be transported in a day ok syds
