5 ms·

Maybe the green party elector finally realised that the battle against CO2 doesn't need to be 100% renewable? Regarding the closing of Fessenheim, it seems lik

Maybe the green party elector finally realised that the battle against CO2 doesn't need to be 100% renewable? Regarding the closing of Fessenheim, it seems like a sensible decision. The central was designed to last 40 years and long exceeded its expiration date. In the last 10 years it had roughly one incident per year with graver and graver consequences. And in any case, France would have started lose a lot of money because, due to the geographical position and the risk it pose, its neighbours, Switzerland and Germany were not really happy with it and had started to repetedly attack the decision to maintain it open in courts. The fact that a politician had to take this decision (and not engineers) is in my opinion the most shocking part. It shows that the ANS probably became complacent with the state of security of centrals. Probably similar to finanicial markets or aviation regulators. And generally when that happens it's the begining of catastrophes.

littlestymaar 5y ago
> Maybe the green party elector finally realised that the battle against CO2 doesn't need to be 100% renewable? I wish it was it, but it's not what's happening. Macron is currently campaigning for his reelection and has decided to adopt a really conservative tone for his campaign: it's all about “fighting islamism”, reducing welfare, etc., etc., the strong nuclear narrative fits clearly in this tone. > Regarding the closing of Fessenheim, it seems like a sensible decision. The central was designed to last 40 years and long exceeded its expiration date. In the last 10 years it had roughly one incident per year with graver and graver consequences. It was designed for 40 years, but so did every other plants that were given a extended lifetime approval. Actually, it's not uncommon at all to design a power plant with a specific lifetime in mind, and extending it afterwards when you realize it hasn't wore out too much (fun facts, some systems were dead long before reaching the 40 years span they had been designed for, and have been replaced even though it wasn't part of the original plan). And as I said, Fessenheim was one of the best plant of that generation when it comes to incidents, it had a much better rating than several plants built a bit later and which will still be in service for the next decade. > And in any case, France would have started lose a lot of money because, due to the geographical position and the risk it pose, its neighbours, Switzerland and Germany were not really happy with it I don't know where you take that from but in reality, France have to pay a huge sum of money to Germany as compensation for the shut-down because part of Fessenheim's plant (17.5%) was owned by the land of Bade-Wurtemberg. The overall price that will be paid until the end of the compensation period (supposed to last until 2041) is still unknown because it will depend on the market price of electricity on that period, but it's expected to be between a faction of billion to a few billion euros.[1] > The fact that a politician had to take this decision (and not engineers) is in my opinion the most shocking part. It shows that the ANS probably became complacent with the state of security of centrals. Probably similar to finanicial markets or aviation regulators. And generally when that happens it's the begining of catastrophes. This is indeed a serious risk with regulation authorities, but in the case of the ASN it's proven pretty reliable in recent days: rthe 50 years lifetime extension was granted in exchange of a huge overhaul of the existing plants (“le grand carénage)” costing several billions, to add a lot of new safety equipment, most of them designed with the Fukushima accident in mind. [1]: https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2017/04/05/20002-20170405ARTFIG00073-fessenheim-et-si-edf-pouvait-encore-empecher-la-fermeture-de-la-centrale.php https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2017/04/05/20002-2017040...

littlestymaar 5y ago

> Maybe the green party elector finally realised that the battle against CO2 doesn't need to be 100% renewable? I wish it was it, but it's not what's happening. Macron is currently campaigning for his reelection and has decided to adopt a really conservative tone for his campaign: it's all about “fighting islamism”, reducing welfare, etc., etc., the strong nuclear narrative fits clearly in this tone. > Regarding the closing of Fessenheim, it seems like a sensible decision. The central was designed to last 40 years and long exceeded its expiration date. In the last 10 years it had roughly one incident per year with graver and graver consequences. It was designed for 40 years, but so did every other plants that were given a extended lifetime approval. Actually, it's not uncommon at all to design a power plant with a specific lifetime in mind, and extending it afterwards when you realize it hasn't wore out too much (fun facts, some systems were dead long before reaching the 40 years span they had been designed for, and have been replaced even though it wasn't part of the original plan). And as I said, Fessenheim was one of the best plant of that generation when it comes to incidents, it had a much better rating than several plants built a bit later and which will still be in service for the next decade. > And in any case, France would have started lose a lot of money because, due to the geographical position and the risk it pose, its neighbours, Switzerland and Germany were not really happy with it I don't know where you take that from but in reality, France have to pay a huge sum of money to Germany as compensation for the shut-down because part of Fessenheim's plant (17.5%) was owned by the land of Bade-Wurtemberg. The overall price that will be paid until the end of the compensation period (supposed to last until 2041) is still unknown because it will depend on the market price of electricity on that period, but it's expected to be between a faction of billion to a few billion euros.[1] > The fact that a politician had to take this decision (and not engineers) is in my opinion the most shocking part. It shows that the ANS probably became complacent with the state of security of centrals. Probably similar to finanicial markets or aviation regulators. And generally when that happens it's the begining of catastrophes. This is indeed a serious risk with regulation authorities, but in the case of the ASN it's proven pretty reliable in recent days: rthe 50 years lifetime extension was granted in exchange of a huge overhaul of the existing plants (“le grand carénage)” costing several billions, to add a lot of new safety equipment, most of them designed with the Fukushima accident in mind. [1]: https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2017/04/05/20002-20170405ARTFIG00073-fessenheim-et-si-edf-pouvait-encore-empecher-la-fermeture-de-la-centrale.php https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2017/04/05/20002-2017040...