11–20 of 256 posts
actual answer: it's right on the border to Germany and has a long history of low-level incidents, and the Germans were starting to get seriously pissed off at that. It's also the oldest nuclear power plant France was still running. Oh and also the Rhine valley is seismically active, even if only at a low level.
Particularly in the context that most discussions surrounding nuclear fission power generation lead with "modern designs and reactors being so much better", now we are apparently at the point where even running the same reactors close to a century supposedly represents no problem?
Afaik originally the life-span for most reactors of that kind was 40 years, how far past that are we willing to go? And what consequences will there be if, once gain, the "one in a million that would never happen" incident leads to yet another catastrophe?
[0] http://watt-logic.com/2016/11/25/french-nuclear-problem/
actual answer: it's right on the border to Germany and has a long history of low-level incidents, and the Germans were starting to get seriously pissed off at that. It's also the oldest nuclear power plant France was still running. Oh and also the Rhine valley is seismically active, even if only at a low level.
1. Can you provide a source? 2. still a problem that they’re not replacing not with green energy though right?
https://www.dw.com/en/reports-fessenheim-nuclear-accident-pl...
I'm not sure there's an easily accessible list of all incidents and/or way to compare that against other plants :/
Ed.: also, yeah, it'd be cool if this wasn't causing an uptake in coal :(
actual answer: it's right on the border to Germany and has a long history of low-level incidents, and the Germans were starting to get seriously pissed off at that. It's also the oldest nuclear power plant France was still running. Oh and also the Rhine valley is seismically active, even if only at a low level.
actual answer: it's right on the border to Germany and has a long history of low-level incidents, and the Germans were starting to get seriously pissed off at that. It's also the oldest nuclear power plant France was still running. Oh and also the Rhine valley is seismically active, even if only at a low level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out
An immediate effect of this decision was to increase Germany’s reliance on fossil fuels, including “brown coal” which is strip-mined in an extraordinarily environmentally-destructive process. Another effect was to increase the German grid’s reliance on nuclear power generated in France.
actual answer: it's right on the border to Germany and has a long history of low-level incidents, and the Germans were starting to get seriously pissed off at that. It's also the oldest nuclear power plant France was still running. Oh and also the Rhine valley is seismically active, even if only at a low level.
A review of the plant’s page on Wikipedia shows that it did indeed have a number of low level incidents. Do you have any sources about those being the true cause of the shutdown?
actual answer: it's right on the border to Germany and has a long history of low-level incidents, and the Germans were starting to get seriously pissed off at that. It's also the oldest nuclear power plant France was still running. Oh and also the Rhine valley is seismically active, even if only at a low level.
So in other words, Germany (with some the most serious "green tech" laws) is basically forcing France to shut down their plant, even though it's been operating mostly fine and has been actually helping fight climate change for a long time already.
> It’s worth noting that, as Fessenheim closes, Germany is commissioning a new coal-fired power plant, in Datteln
Exactly. Why are so many people ignoring what happens in step 2?
When nuclear is shut down, it gets replaced with something worse. Often coal!
"German electricity was nearly 10 times dirtier than France's in 2016... Germany's overall emissions increased in 2016 as a result of the country closing one of its nuclear plants and replacing it with coal and natural gas" [1]
"It is one unintended consequence of the Fukushima nuclear disaster almost a decade ago, which forced Japan to all but close its nuclear power program. Japan now plans to build as many as 22 new coal-burning power plants — one of the dirtiest sources of electricity"[2]
Nuclear energy is also far safer than most other sources, about the same as renewables.
"Nuclear and renewable sources are similarly safe: in the range of 0.005 to 0.07 deaths per TWh. Both nuclear and renewable energy sources have death rates hundreds of times lower than coal and oil, and are tens to hundreds of times safer than gas."[3]
1. https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/2/11/german-...
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/climate/japan-coal-fukush...
actual answer: it's right on the border to Germany and has a long history of low-level incidents, and the Germans were starting to get seriously pissed off at that. It's also the oldest nuclear power plant France was still running. Oh and also the Rhine valley is seismically active, even if only at a low level.
If you actually bothered to read the ASN reports, you'd see that it's because it was one of the most transparent plant, hence the higher numbers.
> Rhine valley is seismically active
It is, which is why it was scaled for several times the biggest ever earthquake recorded (1365 IIRC, they derived the scale from models based on the damages it did).
ASN deemed its security "very satisfying", the rest is BS.