4 ms·

While it used to be a different matter in France, they last completed a reactor more than 30 years ago and the one currently being built is beset with the same

While it used to be a different matter in France, they last completed a reactor more than 30 years ago and the one currently being built is beset with the same time and cost overruns as those in the U.K. > A third reactor at the site, an EPR unit, began construction in 2007 with its commercial introduction scheduled for 2012. As of 2020 the project is more than five times over budget and years behind schedule. Various safety problems have been raised, including weakness in the steel used in the reactor.[1] In July 2019, further delays were announced, pushing back the commercial date to the end 2022. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl...

hilbert42 5y ago
Yeah, perhaps the French have eventually 'caught' whatever it is that English speakers caught long ago. :-) More seriously, I've not been there for some years now so I'm somewhat out of touch, but at one point I was working in the industry (but not employed by any French organization, EDF, etc.), nevertheless I had a reasonable overview of what the French were doing as far as power generation was concerned. Everyone who I met almost to a person including my nontechnical aunt and uncle who lived in Paris, were pro nuclear power. They saw it as a cheap source of power and also it represented engineering excellence and prowess for France. I'm guessing, but perhaps the main reason for this collective view stems from de Gaulle's early entry into both military and nuclear power immediately after WWII - from early 1946 onward, thus nuclear power was well established in the the halcyon days of the 1950s before worldwide controversy broke out over the nuclear industry. There's also France's rebuilding phase after WWII, where modernist ideas took hold more strongly there than in many other countries. That attitude probably smoothed the way. Then there's that French Gaullism (which I admire but it's no fun being on the pointed end of it), which basically says 'we're doing it our way and to hell with the rest of you'. Perhaps that attitude has dissipated somewhat by now (at least as far as the nuclear industry is concerned). Flamanville, though, does seem to be overly uncharacteristic when compared with previous efforts. Anyway, whatever the French did early on in nuclear power genertaion, it was very successful compared to other countries, as the percentage of nuclear power produced in France is second to none.
- laurencerowe 5y ago
  I always assumed it just made more sense for France to go all in on nuclear since they didn’t have coal or oil and gas. I don’t know how much of the problem is that the new reactors they’re trying to build are so much more complex or that after building as many as they needed, the 30 year gap in construction meant there was a loss of industrial knowledge of how to do it efficiently.
natmaka 5y ago
The "decades lost between projects" is a fable, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29137107 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29137107

hilbert42 5y ago

Yeah, perhaps the French have eventually 'caught' whatever it is that English speakers caught long ago. :-) More seriously, I've not been there for some years now so I'm somewhat out of touch, but at one point I was working in the industry (but not employed by any French organization, EDF, etc.), nevertheless I had a reasonable overview of what the French were doing as far as power generation was concerned. Everyone who I met almost to a person including my nontechnical aunt and uncle who lived in Paris, were pro nuclear power. They saw it as a cheap source of power and also it represented engineering excellence and prowess for France. I'm guessing, but perhaps the main reason for this collective view stems from de Gaulle's early entry into both military and nuclear power immediately after WWII - from early 1946 onward, thus nuclear power was well established in the the halcyon days of the 1950s before worldwide controversy broke out over the nuclear industry. There's also France's rebuilding phase after WWII, where modernist ideas took hold more strongly there than in many other countries. That attitude probably smoothed the way. Then there's that French Gaullism (which I admire but it's no fun being on the pointed end of it), which basically says 'we're doing it our way and to hell with the rest of you'. Perhaps that attitude has dissipated somewhat by now (at least as far as the nuclear industry is concerned). Flamanville, though, does seem to be overly uncharacteristic when compared with previous efforts. Anyway, whatever the French did early on in nuclear power genertaion, it was very successful compared to other countries, as the percentage of nuclear power produced in France is second to none.

laurencerowe 5y ago
I always assumed it just made more sense for France to go all in on nuclear since they didn’t have coal or oil and gas. I don’t know how much of the problem is that the new reactors they’re trying to build are so much more complex or that after building as many as they needed, the 30 year gap in construction meant there was a loss of industrial knowledge of how to do it efficiently.

natmaka 5y ago

The "decades lost between projects" is a fable, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29137107 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29137107