Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is the Fessenheim 2 nuclear power plant closing in France?

sustainability-times.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 256 posts

Re: Why is the Fessenheim 2 nuclear power plant closing in France?

#151

Post by shipstern »

fcantournet wrote: post #28
freeflight wrote: post #12

It's weird of the article gives plenty of direct citations from nuclear operators, while at the same time acting like French 40+ year old fission tech doesn't have any issues [0] or sustainability problems, and how the French could dare to shut down one of their first reactors. Particularly in the context that most discussions surrounding nuclear fission power generation lead with "modern designs and reactors being s…

We have a independent national authority (ASN ~ Nuclear Safety Authority) which is tasked to assess the security of all nuclear power plants and certifies them for periods of 10y. The plant that is being closed was certified by the ASN. The 40y lifespan was the MINIMUM certified lifespan of the power plant. It could very well run for another 40y. These kinds of equipment are modernised every 10 years during the shudo…

That might be, but Germany and Switzerland assessed the safety to be suboptimal.

"In 2007, the same year a Swiss study found that seismic risks in the Alsace region had been underestimated during construction, the ASN denounced a “lack of rigour” in EDF’s operation of the plant."

Re: Why is the Fessenheim 2 nuclear power plant closing in France?

#152

Post by lucioperca »

Ohh come on nuclear power is not for sure that low carbon if you consider the whole life cycle: https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-... https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332

New power plants which statisfies western standards like UK Hinkley are a cost nightmare. Further it essentially funds new nuclear weapons: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-...

Sure there is some slim chance that old western or new Chernobyl style reactors would offer dead cheap ecological energy eventually (moving all complementary processes like getting the ore or building holes to dump the radioactive waste to electric). Also this offers the chance to create a huge wild life refugee in even more central Europe eventually (sure why should we care about people losing their homeland): https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-...

Re: Why is the Fessenheim 2 nuclear power plant closing in France?

#153

Post by Udik »

morsch wrote: post #122
kergonath wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bulk of French renewable is hydro, which is not going to grow, and has been there for ages. It's actually a very good complement to nuclear plants. It's disingenuous to point at 28% renewables as if it's a sudden victory of good wind and solar against bad old nuclear. Particularly when we know that gas power plants will be built to partially replace Fessenheim.

Current renewable generation is two thirds hydro, one third solar and wind. France's installed capacity for solar plus wind already exceeds hydro. With plenty of room for more.

> installed capacity for solar plus wind

Installed capacity for solar and wind is a parameter that seems pretty meaningless. For example (according to Wikipedia) the Agua Caliente solar project in Arizona (an ideal location), has an effective output of less than 30% of its installed capacity. A PV plant more comparable with France's conditions, the Lauingen Energy Park in Bavaria, has an output of 12% of its installed capacity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Photovoltaic_p...

Re: Why is the Fessenheim 2 nuclear power plant closing in France?

#154

Post by p4bl0 »

steeve wrote: post #59
freeflight wrote: post #12

It's weird of the article gives plenty of direct citations from nuclear operators, while at the same time acting like French 40+ year old fission tech doesn't have any issues [0] or sustainability problems, and how the French could dare to shut down one of their first reactors. Particularly in the context that most discussions surrounding nuclear fission power generation lead with "modern designs and reactors being s…

> Afaik originally the life-span for most reactors of that kind was 40 years It is not. That number was made so that EDF would get a proper return of investment. Some plants based on the same design have been granted lifespan to 60 years in the US. > how far past that are we willing to go? As long as its safe. Why throw away something that works, is safe and reliable on the counts that some folks put out a number?

How can anyone call nuclear power "safe"? Have we discovered a way to actually deal with the nuclear waste yet?

Re: Why is the Fessenheim 2 nuclear power plant closing in France?

#155

Post by p4bl0 »

fcantournet wrote: post #28
freeflight wrote: post #12

It's weird of the article gives plenty of direct citations from nuclear operators, while at the same time acting like French 40+ year old fission tech doesn't have any issues [0] or sustainability problems, and how the French could dare to shut down one of their first reactors. Particularly in the context that most discussions surrounding nuclear fission power generation lead with "modern designs and reactors being s…

We have a independent national authority (ASN ~ Nuclear Safety Authority) which is tasked to assess the security of all nuclear power plants and certifies them for periods of 10y. The plant that is being closed was certified by the ASN. The 40y lifespan was the MINIMUM certified lifespan of the power plant. It could very well run for another 40y. These kinds of equipment are modernised every 10 years during the shudo…

You have to conceed that the independence of the ASN is at least debatable.

Re: Why is the Fessenheim 2 nuclear power plant closing in France?

#156

Post by yongjik »

onli wrote: post #147
retrac wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it is a full order of magnitude larger, it still compares quite favourably to fossil fuels.

Right, that's part of what I was citing. But the people vehemently opposing nuclear power plants, like me, are generally also opposing fossil fuels. So that doesn't change anything.

Maybe you do, but most people "vehemently opposing nuclear power plants" only pay some lip service to fossil fuels. I've yet to see an anti-nuclear activist declaring that Germany and Japan have nothing to be proud of, considering their carbon footprint. Granted I didn't search very hard, but every anti-nuclear opinion piece I've come across praises how "Germany and Japan showed" that it's possible to shut down nuclear power. The staggering environmental cost of fossil fuels is at best left in a footnote.

Re: Why is the Fessenheim 2 nuclear power plant closing in France?

#157

Post by jjoonathan »

Klinky wrote: post #135
jjoonathan wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we (US) hadn't stopped building nuclear in the 80s, and had simply kept building at the same rate, our grid would be (near) zero carbon today . Not several decades from now if we hustle our asses off, today . But that's not what happened. The anti-nuclear team won and we collectively made the responsible decision to fill our atmosphere with CO2 instead. Yay?

This would be great if CO2 was the only waste product of a nuclear plant, but it's not. You not only needed to keep building plants, but also designate proper waste storage sites, which are still up in the air to this day, and some sites like Hanford are utter ecological disasters. It also did not help that the 70s ended with the Three-Mile Island disaster and serious construction flaws being found at Trojan. Then in…

Nuclear safety and waste are among the most serious of issues, but it is disturbingly common and dishonest to present them without comparison to the safety and waste problems of the alternatives and without optimizing for safety per kilowatt.

Coal particulates, acidic gasses, and CO2 are awful. Natural gas CO2 is awful. I hardly need to elaborate, yet this is the alternative we chose.

It's not just coal that has problems, though: hydroelectric power has an appalling history of accidents leading to enormous death and destruction, yet it maintains a sterling reputation in environmental groups, at least compared to nuclear. Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure (sort by fatalities, look for Banqiao Dam at 170000)

Wind and solar installations illustrate why it's important to count per unit of energy produced. They commit the "sin" of low density. With wind, you construct a gigantic edifice of concrete, steel, and fiberglass, likely in a remote location or even out at sea, and at the end of the day you can power a couple neighborhoods, some of the time. In a nuclear power plant, you construct a gigantic edifice of concrete and steel and you can power a couple of cities, all of the time. You have a handful of experts in a concrete bunker, compared to, say, residential solar with an army of contractors running around every roof in a city every few years. Slips and falls won't get a HBO miniseries, but they ruin lives just the same.

At scale, it all must be accounted for. It has been, but the results don't line up with public perception and as a consequence we collectively made a terrible mistake.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Re: Why is the Fessenheim 2 nuclear power plant closing in France?

#158

Post by onli »

orwin wrote: post #142
onli wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, that's unnecessary. I admit that my comment was written in haste and is not properly backed up and can't be properly backed up, not like that. It's a melange of several points, not well distilled. But the essence goes like: 1. France has a very powerful elite system and one specific route to get there (I'm not saying the engineering schools are that way). That's not controversial, that's just how it is. 2. This…

1. ASN inspectors reports are not edited by their president or directors (commissaires). The whole structure is based on engineers. Inspectors are strictly engineers. 2. Most nuclear engineer are from Grenoble/Saint-etienne or Lyon. Some are from polytech (so Paris) but this is rare. 3. If you say so. It might conflict with greepeace's vision of ecology, but not with the IPCC's and for multiple reasons, i think i wou…

> Wait! i have multiples solutions. ...

I think those are reasonable measures.

> But closing a nuclear plant to replace it by gas (and coal, even if temporary) is easier.

I assume you'd be less angry if you were aware that I oppose that as well. I think it's in general opposed by the people wanting nuclear energy to end.

Talking mostly about Germany here. The process basically was 1) Have a strong agreement that nuclear energy is bad, fueled by its insecurity, costs and the waste it produces. This is driven by grassroots movements and green parties. 2) Conservative politicians say "Okay, then we replace them with coal. Oh, and we cut the subventions for renewable energies." 3) The same people that organized the successful protest against the nuclear plants now organize protests against the coal plants.

No one is happy about that process. The only good thing that came out of it is the higher usage of renewable energies. And that because of that the coal plants now are unprofitable. But that is partly despite what the conservative politicians wanted. They even blocked the building of new wind turbines because they look bad. Exactly the contrary of what had to happen the last two years.

Re: Why is the Fessenheim 2 nuclear power plant closing in France?

#159

Post by Klinky »

jjoonathan wrote: post #157
Klinky wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be great if CO2 was the only waste product of a nuclear plant, but it's not. You not only needed to keep building plants, but also designate proper waste storage sites, which are still up in the air to this day, and some sites like Hanford are utter ecological disasters. It also did not help that the 70s ended with the Three-Mile Island disaster and serious construction flaws being found at Trojan. Then in…

Nuclear safety and waste are among the most serious of issues, but it is disturbingly common and dishonest to present them without comparison to the safety and waste problems of the alternatives and without optimizing for safety per kilowatt. Coal particulates, acidic gasses, and CO2 are awful. Natural gas CO2 is awful. I hardly need to elaborate, yet this is the alternative we chose. It's not just coal that has prob…

No it's not dishonest. Where are the storage facilities? Is Hanford a disaster or not? Were there fundamental quality and safety issues in the 70s(and before) around nuclear facilities?

Pointing out that other stuff is "just as bad as nuclear" is not helping the argument for nuclear.

Re: Why is the Fessenheim 2 nuclear power plant closing in France?

#160

Post by Klinky »

msla wrote: post #143
Klinky wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be great if CO2 was the only waste product of a nuclear plant, but it's not. You not only needed to keep building plants, but also designate proper waste storage sites, which are still up in the air to this day, and some sites like Hanford are utter ecological disasters. It also did not help that the 70s ended with the Three-Mile Island disaster and serious construction flaws being found at Trojan. Then in…

Why do people always forget that coal plants spew radiation into the environment? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

I was already aware. How does pointing this out solve nuclear waste storage issues?
Post reply on HN