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?

#101

Post by dv_dt » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 6:37 PM UTC

Mirioron wrote: post #30

dv_dt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's moving slow, but France does have planning working through how to manage nuclear going forward. Replacment with renewables as studied by the French gov't seems not only promising but cost effective. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-po...

These stories are always very nice and the plants cost effective, but are they true? Pakistan had a 100MW solar powerplant built for them. It actually ended up producing 18MW and required extensive amounts of water to clean the dust off of the panels.[0] I'm sure they were also told that renewables are cheap and will be great, but somehow everyone missed this. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaid-e-Azam_Solar_Park

I have a feeling the civil projects in Pakistan have a different success rate than maybe other places. And even apart from that one sample is not really conclusive of anything.

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

#102

Post by onli » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #90

onli wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a very focused elite building system in which the big universities creating the future members of the elite are heavily financed and influenced by pro-nuclear organizations. That goes especially for politicans, but includes engineers. The pro-nuclear propaganda repeated by the people that go through this is frightening, many of them are completely brainwashed. In no way can the ASN be really independent, as…

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?

Yes, that's the a common talking point that is false, "Nuclear energy does not produce CO2, or almost none". But you only see that it is false if you look at complete lifecycle analysis of building the plants, running the plants, mining and transporting the uranium, transportintg the waste, dismantling the plant etc.

You can try to argue that the US would have less carbon emissions than today - something I'm inclined to believe given how much fossil fuels are used today - but in no way would it be zero.

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

#103

Post by dv_dt » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

joss82 wrote: post #43

dv_dt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's moving slow, but France does have planning working through how to manage nuclear going forward. Replacment with renewables as studied by the French gov't seems not only promising but cost effective. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-po...

This article is misleading. You can NOT replace nuclear with wind and solar. Because you can't choose when the sun shines and when the wind blows. Hydro in France is already built-up everywhere it was feasible. There are no more spots to build meaningful hydro power capacity. Too bad since hydro is the only renewable that can really replace the nuclear power plants.

At least with studies on the Australian grid, it seems like the need for "baseload" sources is myth fueled mostly by resistance to upgrading to renewable sources.

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/baseload-ene...

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

#104

Post by gmac » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

eqvinox wrote: post #25

steeve wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has a long history of low-level incidents 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 "ve…

All of your arguments might be correct, and none of them matter to public opinion and politics. Maybe if they were less transparent, there would have been less political pressure from Germany... And I totally agree this is as dumb as it gets.

The fact that we know we can rank French nuclear plants by their transparency level is already seriously screwed up.

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

#105

Post by kergonath » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

eqvinox wrote: post #9

scohesc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have no idea whether it's even possible to find out how the different reasons have factored into the decision; it might as well just have been due to the age or seismic activity and nothing else... But, in reality, it was probably a mix of all 3 and some more.

The fundamental reason is electoral calculus. The socialists, and then macronists, needed green votes to get a majority. The safety assessment is perfectly fine.

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

#106

Post by dv_dt » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

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?

In the US upgrades of old plants in the US have gone wrong. e.g. see the San Onofre upgrade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_...

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

#107

Post by orwin » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

onli wrote: post #41

fcantournet wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a very focused elite building system in which the big universities creating the future members of the elite are heavily financed and influenced by pro-nuclear organizations. That goes especially for politicans, but includes engineers. The pro-nuclear propaganda repeated by the people that go through this is frightening, many of them are completely brainwashed. In no way can the ASN be really independent, as…

This is one convenient lie.

I will just criticize the "pro-nuclear propaganda" bit and ignore the other anti-elite stuff about the engineering schools, after all "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

What is called in France ENR (new renewable energies, basically solar and wind power) are backed by gaz companies, and now even French oil companies (Total) have a hand in the game. Areva (Now Oreno i think), the biggest company ever in the nuclear industry recently had a 6 billion turnover (around 2016 i think since this was the time i took interest on this particular subject). For scale, Gazprom, heavily invested in wind turbin in Denmark and Germany, had a 130 Billion turnover around the same time. I did not check Total cause frankly, i'm tired of spending energy against this "argument". Who do you think is putting more money on the table?

Also (because this anti-engineer stuff is frankly broking me), if you don't believe the ASN and the people working there, then you should vote or manifest to replace the ASN and its sisters organisations that are taking care of the electrical network, bridge and tunnels in France. Surely they weren't considered amongst the best in the world for a long time, barely more than 50 years!

And if you think the UNSCEAR rapports (like the one on the effect of Fukushima) are lying, well then don't be picky and choose to reject all scientific products of this corrupt organisation that use the same compilation method, like the IPCC. And if you or your familly have cancer and have to go under radiation, refuse every doctor that wrote on the subject whose paper where used by the UNSCEAR scientist.

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

#108

Post by kergonath » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

onli wrote: post #102

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?

Yes, that's the a common talking point that is false, "Nuclear energy does not produce CO2, or almost none". But you only see that it is false if you look at complete lifecycle analysis of building the plants, running the plants, mining and transporting the uranium, transportintg the waste, dismantling the plant etc. You can try to argue that the US would have less carbon emissions than today - something I'm inclined…

Even counting for the whole life cycle, nuclear is a very small greenhouse gas emitter. One plant lasts decades and a very small amount of ore needs to be mined, because uranium is very energy-dense.

I think your point is valid, but lacks generality. Almost nothing we do is carbon neutral. Our energy production certainly isn't. Playing devil's advocate, PV and wind turbines also need to be built, transported, installed, disassembled, and disposed of, all of which emits greenhouse gases.

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

#109

Post by __s » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

Mirioron wrote: post #30

dv_dt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's moving slow, but France does have planning working through how to manage nuclear going forward. Replacment with renewables as studied by the French gov't seems not only promising but cost effective. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-po...

These stories are always very nice and the plants cost effective, but are they true? Pakistan had a 100MW solar powerplant built for them. It actually ended up producing 18MW and required extensive amounts of water to clean the dust off of the panels.[0] I'm sure they were also told that renewables are cheap and will be great, but somehow everyone missed this. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaid-e-Azam_Solar_Park

There will be unsuccessful projects, which while we should learn from them, shouldn't be the anecdotes to condemn a technology

Here's a retrospective, ie an attempt at looking at how things have actually played out compared to projections we're often fed, https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/downloads/retrospective-be... (Chapter 5 of pdf is what looks into your question)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source also aggregates information to try answer your question

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

#110

Post by ogrisel » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

jhayward wrote: post #75

Reedx wrote: post #19

> The saddest part of this story is that there is no new renewable plant being built overnight to replace Fessenheim. It will be replaced almost entirely by fossil fuels. > 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. Ofte…

> 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.

Here are some numbers to back this statement:

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&p...

It's true that in the first 3 years after the decision to speed-up the closure of nuclear in Germany in 2011, coal use increased. But more recently it went down drastically and was replaced mostly by wind and solar on a yearly basis.

Here is similar data but not just Germany (using the data from the 2020 BP statistical review):

https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/ogrisel/energy_charts/bl...