4 ms·

France imports a lot of gas generated power from Germany over the course of the year. Without Germany's readily available gas turbines, France wouldn't be able

by foepys 5y ago

France imports a lot of gas generated power from Germany over the course of the year. Without Germany's readily available gas turbines, France wouldn't be able to stabilize their net. Same the other way around where Germany relies on France's almost always available nuclear power.

pjerem 5y ago
Also, we (the French) made a stupid move by closing the Fessenheim power plant although it have passed all the security checks and could have continue to work for one or more decades.
- onli 5y ago
  That's not even remotely true. Fessenheim was a huge security risk and would not have passed any security checks in a country not as fanatically pro-nuclear as France. See https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Pannen-AKW-Fessenheim-geht-vom-Netz-article21594055.html https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Pannen-AKW-Fessenheim-geht-vom-N...: > Fessenheim liegt in einem Erdbebengebiet, das Kraftwerk ist gegen einen Flugzeugabsturz oder Anschlag unzureichend geschützt. Zudem kam es immer wieder zu Pannen. That says: It was in an seismic active zone, unprotected against plane crashes or terror attacks. There also were a bunch of accidents. Those old reactor designs weren't safe.
  - orwin 5y ago
    > That's not even remotely true. It is though. For CEA experts at least. And considering what those experts did to the EPR, i'm pretty sure they are not as "pro-edf" or "pro-nuclear" as the Green tell they are. > Fessenheim was a huge security risk and would not have passed any security checks in a country not as fanatically pro-nuclear as France. You're dissing CEA engineers and physicists here. > That says: It was in an seismic active zone This reason is bullshit. Fessenhein is a PWR reactor, unless you have something like 7 on the Richter scale, the reactor will likely just hold. On a 7, you have leakage risks, and maybe on a nine you'll get a meltdown? Do you think its likely to get a 7 or more there? > unprotected against plane crashes or terror attacks. True, plane crashes are not an issue though, unless you know exactly where the core or the pool is (one is a much much bigger issue than the other obviously). And to engage security mesures you need to either: push a big button, or cut electricity. Once the grid is down, there is no way to make the core explode, and if you take more than 30 minutes to put a bomb on it, it probably won't even meltdown. To reengage the reactor you need knowledge, so a sabotage is still possible. > There also were a bunch of accidents. True, and bad ones. Hiring contractors is good for us, earning that much doing pretty much nothing, but ultimately bad for the company, especially when you need to keep competency at a high level. Not the only nuclear plant in France where incompetency reigns from what i heard. > Those old reactor designs weren't safe. Untrue, but true for fessenheim. No commercial French reactor active right now are as unsafe as let's say Fukushima, because our Gen2 were that much better (as were the US's). Not as well designed as CANDUC type, but PWR are stable and do have passive protection against a chain reaction or a leak. Also, you can just move the core out and voila, no more nuclear reaction. Anyway. The second wave was improved upon "thanks" to the TMI incident, and even older reactors got better passive risk reduction upgrades and better detection. But, Fessenheim did had a lot of troubles (and by troubles, i mean incidents from human origin), and while the cuve could probably last another 30 to 40 years, the PWR tech also have big wear and tear effect on surrounding equipements. The CEA accounted for this in their rapport, and precognized a long downtime to put thing in order.
vntok 5y ago
> Without Germany's readily available gas turbines, France wouldn't be able to stabilize their net Nonsense. Nuclear energy could power much more in France, it's only for political reasons that the grid managers do not ramp up nuclear production to meet demand, thus having to import electricity at times. The nuclear-powered baseline could be much higher without issues others than political (% of renewable energy in the mix)

by foepys 5y ago

pjerem 5y ago

Also, we (the French) made a stupid move by closing the Fessenheim power plant although it have passed all the security checks and could have continue to work for one or more decades.

onli 5y ago
That's not even remotely true. Fessenheim was a huge security risk and would not have passed any security checks in a country not as fanatically pro-nuclear as France. See https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Pannen-AKW-Fessenheim-geht-vom-Netz-article21594055.html https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Pannen-AKW-Fessenheim-geht-vom-N...: > Fessenheim liegt in einem Erdbebengebiet, das Kraftwerk ist gegen einen Flugzeugabsturz oder Anschlag unzureichend geschützt. Zudem kam es immer wieder zu Pannen. That says: It was in an seismic active zone, unprotected against plane crashes or terror attacks. There also were a bunch of accidents. Those old reactor designs weren't safe.
- orwin 5y ago
  > That's not even remotely true. It is though. For CEA experts at least. And considering what those experts did to the EPR, i'm pretty sure they are not as "pro-edf" or "pro-nuclear" as the Green tell they are. > Fessenheim was a huge security risk and would not have passed any security checks in a country not as fanatically pro-nuclear as France. You're dissing CEA engineers and physicists here. > That says: It was in an seismic active zone This reason is bullshit. Fessenhein is a PWR reactor, unless you have something like 7 on the Richter scale, the reactor will likely just hold. On a 7, you have leakage risks, and maybe on a nine you'll get a meltdown? Do you think its likely to get a 7 or more there? > unprotected against plane crashes or terror attacks. True, plane crashes are not an issue though, unless you know exactly where the core or the pool is (one is a much much bigger issue than the other obviously). And to engage security mesures you need to either: push a big button, or cut electricity. Once the grid is down, there is no way to make the core explode, and if you take more than 30 minutes to put a bomb on it, it probably won't even meltdown. To reengage the reactor you need knowledge, so a sabotage is still possible. > There also were a bunch of accidents. True, and bad ones. Hiring contractors is good for us, earning that much doing pretty much nothing, but ultimately bad for the company, especially when you need to keep competency at a high level. Not the only nuclear plant in France where incompetency reigns from what i heard. > Those old reactor designs weren't safe. Untrue, but true for fessenheim. No commercial French reactor active right now are as unsafe as let's say Fukushima, because our Gen2 were that much better (as were the US's). Not as well designed as CANDUC type, but PWR are stable and do have passive protection against a chain reaction or a leak. Also, you can just move the core out and voila, no more nuclear reaction. Anyway. The second wave was improved upon "thanks" to the TMI incident, and even older reactors got better passive risk reduction upgrades and better detection. But, Fessenheim did had a lot of troubles (and by troubles, i mean incidents from human origin), and while the cuve could probably last another 30 to 40 years, the PWR tech also have big wear and tear effect on surrounding equipements. The CEA accounted for this in their rapport, and precognized a long downtime to put thing in order.

vntok 5y ago

> Without Germany's readily available gas turbines, France wouldn't be able to stabilize their net Nonsense. Nuclear energy could power much more in France, it's only for political reasons that the grid managers do not ramp up nuclear production to meet demand, thus having to import electricity at times. The nuclear-powered baseline could be much higher without issues others than political (% of renewable energy in the mix)