6 ms·

As the article states, they lost their competency. Here in France, the reason is poor planning, focus on cost-cutting and lack of long term vision by top manage

by ajnin 8y ago

As the article states, they lost their competency. Here in France, the reason is poor planning, focus on cost-cutting and lack of long term vision by top management and government. EDF, the historical state power company turned into a private company in 2004, laid off most of the technicians that built the power plants over the years and subcontracted all the maintenance work to hundreds of subcontractors that fight for the lowest bid and employ only underqualified people, who often work in illegal conditions. The latest EPR reactor in construction in France is riddled with defects, the pressure vessel, built by Framatome, also absorbed by EDF, has uneven carbon content which means it could crack. The concrete enclosure has many large holes due to poor work. The bridge on top of the reactor was made of low-quality steel bought in Russia and had to be replaced. Basically everything is badly done, because they constantly try too make it in the cheapest way possible. But it's not working out for them because fortunately the nuclear safety authority is there to force them to redo things correctly. In its current state, the nuclear industry is basically dead in France. As another example, they can't decomission the plants arriving in end of life, and EDF officially postponed it until 2100.

cc439 8y ago
>As the article states, they lost their competency. I think people undereatimate how bleak the short term future (50-100 years) is looking right now. We've forgotten how to properly build many of the things we once touted as the pinnacles of modern civilization and the current societal status quo is too fractured and stressed to ever pursue the kind of learning process needed to reaquire that knowledge. This is but one example among many.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  We have plenty of competence in wind and solar energy. What we need to pay attention to is that many of the nuclear plants built in the past are flawed, and so we always had less competence at building them than we thought.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Not at all. We had plenty of competence. We just chose to save a buck instead of using it. And the risk ? "You cannot blame me for that !" (especially since this is taxpayer funds, ie. everyone, decided by democratic vote, at least in France and the US. The democratic contract ought to mean that since we collectively decided to do this, we are also collectively responsible for the results, and yes, even if you voted for the other guy)
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      You appear to be certain that you know a lot about whom to blame, but the reality is that it's unclear that we ever had the ability to build a large number of reliable nuclear power plants.
      - Ygg2 8y ago
        We know we are incapable, because deaths per GWh for nuclear power are lower than solar or wind. Oh wait. No. That's opposite.
      - opo 8y ago
        >…it's unclear that we ever had the ability to build a large number of reliable nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants have been safer and more reliable than other forms of power. In terms of reliability, nuclear has had the highest capacity factor of any source of power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor In terms of accidents, nuclear has had a much better safety record than any other form of power up this point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents (They don’t cover ground based solar which I would think would actually be the safest. Why do people keep wanting to subsidize roof top solar?) Some other links on deaths due to energy production: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener... https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw... https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#25416d10709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... Unfortunately anything at all related to nuclear is covered by the media orders of magnitude more than other power sources so people have an understandable perception that it is much more dangerous than other sources of power. What if the Alison Canyon was a nuclear storage site (instead of a natural gas storage site) and 11,000 people had to be evacuated - how much would the media have covered that? Another recent example would be the evacuation at the Oroville dam - almost 200,000 (YES 200 thousand!) people were forcibly evacuated since the worst case failure scenario would have have been a tidal wave of water 30 feet high rushing down stream. This made the news for maybe a day. I can't blame some for being afraid of nuclear power, but there are many who should know better.
- Bograff 8y ago
  I feel like this outlook discredits a lot of wonderful young people out there.
Reason077 8y ago
And yet, the UK government awarded EDF the contract to build the new Hinkley Point C plant, to the same EPR design. Decommissioning nuclear plants is hugely expensive and a problem all over the world. It’s one of the main reasons why nuclear is now so expensive. One hope is that it may be cheaper in future with advances in robotics, etc, which can operate safely in contaminated environments.
wiz21c 8y ago
>>> hundreds of subcontractors that fight for the lowest bid and employ only underqualified people ahhhh the marvels of competition...
- pacnard 8y ago
  But there is no competition. The company that is using subcontractors has a law-sustained monopoly and political connections. Of course they just need to look for the cheapest guys.
iforgotpassword 8y ago
This perfectly illustrates why I'm absolutely against nuclear energy. You know, all those pro nuclear advocates apparently assume that powerplants will be run by selfless companies that only care about safety and human well being and are content as soon as they can cover their expenses. I can't fathom how you can be this disconnected from reality. Reality is that you cut costs, and keep cutting costs more and more as long as that thing doesn't blow up, and if you have problems or minor leakage that you would have to report but can cover up, you do so. And we didn't even get started with nuclear waste. What could and should be done and what is currently being done is again miles apart in many instances.

by ajnin 8y ago

cc439 8y ago

>As the article states, they lost their competency. I think people undereatimate how bleak the short term future (50-100 years) is looking right now. We've forgotten how to properly build many of the things we once touted as the pinnacles of modern civilization and the current societal status quo is too fractured and stressed to ever pursue the kind of learning process needed to reaquire that knowledge. This is but one example among many.

greglindahl 8y ago
We have plenty of competence in wind and solar energy. What we need to pay attention to is that many of the nuclear plants built in the past are flawed, and so we always had less competence at building them than we thought.
- candiodari 8y ago
  Not at all. We had plenty of competence. We just chose to save a buck instead of using it. And the risk ? "You cannot blame me for that !" (especially since this is taxpayer funds, ie. everyone, decided by democratic vote, at least in France and the US. The democratic contract ought to mean that since we collectively decided to do this, we are also collectively responsible for the results, and yes, even if you voted for the other guy)
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    You appear to be certain that you know a lot about whom to blame, but the reality is that it's unclear that we ever had the ability to build a large number of reliable nuclear power plants.
    - Ygg2 8y ago
      We know we are incapable, because deaths per GWh for nuclear power are lower than solar or wind. Oh wait. No. That's opposite.
    - opo 8y ago
      >…it's unclear that we ever had the ability to build a large number of reliable nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants have been safer and more reliable than other forms of power. In terms of reliability, nuclear has had the highest capacity factor of any source of power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor In terms of accidents, nuclear has had a much better safety record than any other form of power up this point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents (They don’t cover ground based solar which I would think would actually be the safest. Why do people keep wanting to subsidize roof top solar?) Some other links on deaths due to energy production: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener... https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw... https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#25416d10709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... Unfortunately anything at all related to nuclear is covered by the media orders of magnitude more than other power sources so people have an understandable perception that it is much more dangerous than other sources of power. What if the Alison Canyon was a nuclear storage site (instead of a natural gas storage site) and 11,000 people had to be evacuated - how much would the media have covered that? Another recent example would be the evacuation at the Oroville dam - almost 200,000 (YES 200 thousand!) people were forcibly evacuated since the worst case failure scenario would have have been a tidal wave of water 30 feet high rushing down stream. This made the news for maybe a day. I can't blame some for being afraid of nuclear power, but there are many who should know better.
Bograff 8y ago
I feel like this outlook discredits a lot of wonderful young people out there.

Reason077 8y ago

And yet, the UK government awarded EDF the contract to build the new Hinkley Point C plant, to the same EPR design. Decommissioning nuclear plants is hugely expensive and a problem all over the world. It’s one of the main reasons why nuclear is now so expensive. One hope is that it may be cheaper in future with advances in robotics, etc, which can operate safely in contaminated environments.

wiz21c 8y ago

>>> hundreds of subcontractors that fight for the lowest bid and employ only underqualified people ahhhh the marvels of competition...

pacnard 8y ago
But there is no competition. The company that is using subcontractors has a law-sustained monopoly and political connections. Of course they just need to look for the cheapest guys.

iforgotpassword 8y ago

This perfectly illustrates why I'm absolutely against nuclear energy. You know, all those pro nuclear advocates apparently assume that powerplants will be run by selfless companies that only care about safety and human well being and are content as soon as they can cover their expenses. I can't fathom how you can be this disconnected from reality. Reality is that you cut costs, and keep cutting costs more and more as long as that thing doesn't blow up, and if you have problems or minor leakage that you would have to report but can cover up, you do so. And we didn't even get started with nuclear waste. What could and should be done and what is currently being done is again miles apart in many instances.