Why is the Fessenheim 2 nuclear power plant closing in France? • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by funcDropShadow » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

steeve wrote: post #210

cure wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can NOT replace nuclear with wind and solar. Because you can't choose when the sun shines and when the wind blows. That's what grid energy storage is for. Traditionally this is often implemented with hydro (sometimes even by pumping water up to a high-altitude reservoir during periods of excess power generation). There are many more exotic methods as well - e.g. the crane that stacks concrete blocks, or the tra…

If you run the numbers, you’ll see that we are several orders of magnitude away from having anything close to the scale of energy storage needed unfortunately

Extending the grid transport capacity, allows you to transport the energy from the place where is currently blowing to the place where it is neaded. That, reduces the need to store power.

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

#242

Post by steeve » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

funcDropShadow wrote: post #241

steeve wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you run the numbers, you’ll see that we are several orders of magnitude away from having anything close to the scale of energy storage needed unfortunately

Extending the grid transport capacity, allows you to transport the energy from the place where is currently blowing to the place where it is neaded. That, reduces the need to store power.

This has been demonstrated to be false at the Europe scale, unfortunately. See https://youtu.be/1aCHN6dytVY (in french though)

In a nutshell, either there's wind everywhere, or not.

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

#243

Post by funcDropShadow » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:17 PM UTC

DuskStar wrote: post #207

jhayward wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When nuclear is shut down, it gets replaced with something worse. Often coal! The implication that this is what happened in Germany is misinformation. None of the energy production of retired nuclear plants in Germany was replaced by coal. Renewable energy replaced the vast majority of it over the last 10 years, and coal use is down by 50% in that period.

And, had Germany not gotten rid of those nuclear power plants, the new renewable generation would have replaced coal. Sure, you can say that renewables replaced nuclear - but at the end of the day, Germany is using coal+renewables instead of nuclear+renewables.

And it still produces more than 30% less CO2 per capita than the us. The sources are in another comment of me.

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

#244

Post by Klinky » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:47 PM UTC

robochat42 wrote: post #220

Klinky wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? Just because someone doesn't kill someone driving recklessly does not excuse their behavior, nor does it mean they won't kill someone next time. The rest of your post seems to be hand waving away serious safety concerns. Chernobyl and Fukishima involved the people who were in charge of the plant making poor decisions. They both played stupid games, and t…

The tsunami killed 15,899 people with 6,157 injured and 2,529 people missing and in 2015, 228,863 were still living away from their homes [1]. But that story was completely overshadowed by the Fukishima melt down that killed 1 person because anti-nuclear stories are media catnip. It also led Germany to commit fully to the shutdown of it's nuclear plants and a 2019 article found that the increase in air pollution will…

Again, your dismal of the seriousness of a nuclear meltdown is not helping your argument.

>So where is the real disaster?

It was Fukushima, which resulted in more loss of trust for nuclear energy. It seems you're more angry at the media for covering a nuclear meltdown, than you are at the operators rolling the dice and making huge errors in their management of the plant. The lame stream media didn't cause the plant to meltdown, that was TEPCOs own hubris and blind ignorance.

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

#245

Post by onli » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

funcDropShadow wrote: post #239

onli wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 nucl…

You are missing the last step. The same people that oppose nuclear and coal energy oppose updating the power grid such that all the wind turbines, already installed, can all be used at the same time. This is the most ridiculous part of the climate activists in Germany, imho. Yes, Germany has already more renewable energy sources than it can use, due to protests against building new power lines. From north to south an…

> The same people that oppose nuclear and coal energy oppose updating the power grid such that all the wind turbines, already installed

That's not correct. The Nord-Süd-Trasse for example was blocked by the CSU, which is a classic nuclear/coal-proponent. See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suedlink.

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

#246

Post by kergonath » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

morsch wrote: post #227

kergonath wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We were not talking about installed capacity, though. Comparing installed capacity without discussing average load factor is also utterly meaningless.

How convenient that I also included the current production (at the time of writing) in my comment, right? Btw now it's 4.6 GW wind+solar vs 6.6 GW hydro.

I am sure you realise that it's not incompatible, right?

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

#247

Post by beached_whale » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

jnxx wrote: post #236

beached_whale wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? Less than any other power source. To call it waste is even debatable as it is still usable for energy production, it just costs too much right now. In the future, this may change. Low level and high level nuclear waste are not the same and the high level waste, as done in some countries at cost, could be reprocessed for fuel. In addition, what is the resu…

> In addition, what is the result of 3 mile island? The word disaster comes with a lot of baggage that I would debate doesn't apply, it was an accident without any fatalities. In the Harrisburg accident, the core had a melt-down, and molten uranium was forming layers at the bottom of the vessel. Water had been being cracked into oxygen and hydrogen by the intense heat. This process was stopped little time before the…

My understand is that with the Fukushima Daiichi incident, we knew this was a possibility. Managers thought they could manage the risk, because there was a likelihood that it would not flood during their watch. I don't know how organize to get around that behavior though

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

#248

Post by beached_whale » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

Klinky wrote: post #182

beached_whale wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? Less than any other power source. To call it waste is even debatable as it is still usable for energy production, it just costs too much right now. In the future, this may change. Low level and high level nuclear waste are not the same and the high level waste, as done in some countries at cost, could be reprocessed for fuel. In addition, what is the resu…

>How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? Just because someone doesn't kill someone driving recklessly does not excuse their behavior, nor does it mean they won't kill someone next time. The rest of your post seems to be hand waving away serious safety concerns. Chernobyl and Fukishima involved the people who were in charge of the plant making poor decisions. They both played stupid games, and t…

The things that actually kill people should get more attention, yes.

It was a chain of failures that started years ago and we ignored the people telling us otherwise. But even then, it took a lot to put it in a situation like this.

As for my basement, no thanks. That's just stupid. People are so scared about things that cannot hurt them that they just say no instead of saying do it correctly without cutting corners. Verify it is done correctly. Nuclear waste storage isn't a bunch of green barrels hastily piled up with green ooze making Ninja Turtles. It's engineered concrete vessels that can survive without leaking during transport accidents. And then the tolerances have been increased. Then they are put deep down into the earth below the water table, several km below the surface, in geologically stable areas. Even then, they plan for failures and how to mitigate them. Layers of protection. These are the consultations going on in Canada right now, and people freaking over it. In the mean time it has been above group in vessels for decades next to the great lakes.

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

#249

Post by Klinky » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

beached_whale wrote: post #248

Klinky wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? Just because someone doesn't kill someone driving recklessly does not excuse their behavior, nor does it mean they won't kill someone next time. The rest of your post seems to be hand waving away serious safety concerns. Chernobyl and Fukishima involved the people who were in charge of the plant making poor decisions. They both played stupid games, and t…

The things that actually kill people should get more attention, yes. It was a chain of failures that started years ago and we ignored the people telling us otherwise. But even then, it took a lot to put it in a situation like this. As for my basement, no thanks. That's just stupid. People are so scared about things that cannot hurt them that they just say no instead of saying do it correctly without cutting corners.…

> The things that actually kill people should get more attention, yes.

Meltdowns don't have the potential to kill? How did you know Fukushima was "no big deal" while it was happening? You didn't. No one knew. It also displaced 154,000 people. I guess that's not newsworthy though.

There was actually plenty of coverage of the earthquake and tsunami, which were immediate uncontrollable natural disasters. No one is lobbying for more earthquakes and tsunamis. Fukushima took months to get under control, and was a preventable man-made disaster.

>But even then, it took a lot to put it in a situation like this.

No it didn't. It took a predicted major earthquake to occur. The earthquake could likely have been weaker and still resulted in a similar outcome.

>things that cannot hurt them that they just say no instead of saying do it correctly without cutting corners

Why does something that "cannot hurt them" need so much engineering to prevent it from hurting them? This looks like doublespeak.

Nuclear power and storage could be done correctly, but it just hasn't been done correctly often enough, making people skeptical of it. It is also extremely costly to engineer these solutions.

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

#250

Post by dTal » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 7:19 PM UTC

funcDropShadow wrote: post #238

dTal wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to be begging the question a bit. If 100% of energy came from nuclear, then maintaining it (and all other activities) would be 0-emissions. Construction work and transportation can surely be done electrically.

But producing and using cement would still emit CO2. That is part of the chemical reaction when it is mixed at a building site.

True. But in the long term, beyond the course of the cement's lifespan, that carbon will eventually be re-absorbed. Strictly speaking, therefore, cement is carbon-neutral.

At any rate - it's a truly miniscule amount of carbon anyway, when amortized over the plant's lifespan. If all of our power came from nuclear, we would not be worrying about greenhouse emissions from the concrete in their construction.