4 ms·

The French reactors were taken offline for scheduled maintenance and repairs. Those hours don't count against reliability metrics because the plants weren't exp

by chiph 4y ago

The French reactors were taken offline for scheduled maintenance and repairs. Those hours don't count against reliability metrics because the plants weren't expected to be operating. The argument is lazy because it's false equivalence. A power plant failing suddenly is not the same thing as a power plant being taken offline to fix a known issue. edit: EDF has announced that they will be restarting their nuclear plants by winter. How this plays into the Russian gas shortage is that France also generates a lot of electricity off natural gas. By working to get the nuclear plants running by winter they won't need to run their natural gas generation plants, leaving more gas to be used for industrial purposes & home heating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7BlzKHfxPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7BlzKHfxPk

mijoharas 4y ago
Thank you.
brazzy 4y ago
> The French reactors were taken offline for scheduled maintenance and repairs. Those hours don't count against reliability metrics because the plants weren't expected to be operating. That is a lie. A total of 12 reactors are down for unscheduled repairs because of corrosion damage that was found during inspections in October 2021. Some of the others are down unscheduled because they used river water for cooling, which due to the hot and dry summer threatened the rivers' ecosystem.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  If there truly were unscheduled repairs then it seems odd that the parent, who's an active HN user since 2012, would throw away their credibility by spreading blatant falsehoods.
  - brazzy 4y ago
    That is a really bizarre way of approaching the issue. Here's a source: https://www.reuters.com/world/france-braces-uncertain-winter-nuclear-power-shortage-looms-2022-08-30/ https://www.reuters.com/world/france-braces-uncertain-winter... And Wikipedia has something of a timeline, with sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis_since_late_2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis...
  - chiph 4y ago
    I believe that Brazzy meant that the news report I linked to was lying. And that might be true. But I don't believe so because the incentives are there for EDF to get those reactors running as quickly as they can - while a reactor is idle it's not earning any money. Reactors are hugely expensive to build - but not really all that expensive to run. A power company has loan payments to make regardless if the reactor is running or not, and they're going to want to minimize any downtime.
- 0xblood 4y ago
  >found during inspections in October 2021 That's a year ago, would you say they scheduled them for this year?
  - brazzy 4y ago
    Perhaps, but I very much would not say that "Those hours don't count against reliability metrics because the plants weren't expected to be operating." These are fairly big, disconcerting issues that are taking a long time to fix, not minor repairs that are part of routine maintenance: https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/fixing-edfs-reactors-corrosion-mystery-take-several-years-french-regulator-warns-2022-05-17/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/fixing-edfs-reac...
- chiph 4y ago
  An unscheduled outage does have a spectrum to it - on the low/bad end there's a reactor scram. No one wants that. But there's also this case, where corrosion was found that needed to be repaired sometime "soon". Scheduling that work almost a year in the future does not count against their reliability score. It's important to note that the river/lake water does not get sent through the reactor. The distilled water used inside the reactor is closely monitored for it's quality to prevent corrosion. There are heat exchangers between the two systems. The corrosion repair was probably in one or more of the heat exchangers (you don't want leaks between the two systems) or in the outer loop cooling pumps & piping. Reactors need a reliable source of water for cooling. The ones near me use man-made lakes where they control the water level to assure a good supply of water. Recreational boating and lake-home real estate is a side benefit. If we had a California-level drought where the lake levels could not be maintained, then yes the reactors would have to be shut down. But dropping water levels are something that can be estimated and graphed on a chart. A shutdown in this case is unexpected and yes probably would be considered to be unscheduled. I'm not sure in France's case where water consumption by the reactor would threaten the ecosystem due to a hot and dry summer. Likely the reverse since the water supply wouldn't be reliable any more. So far as water consumption by the reactors - the majority of the water gets returned to the river. It's warmer when it returns and that can cause algae growth, but it can also make for some good fishing (bass, bluegill, etc). Some reactors have cooling towers that work by evaporation, and that water gets returned to nature as rain.
  - brazzy 4y ago
    > Scheduling that work almost a year in the future does not count against their reliability score. Of fucking course it does! Otherwise your definition of that "score" is stupid and useless. Equipment is reliable if it is available when you need it. A technology that has half your reactor fleet down for many months, just as you most need them, is by no stretch of imagination reliable. Claiming otherwise is either delusional or dishonest.
    - leaflets2 4y ago
      Yes, imaging shutting down 40% of the roads in France, and saying: "We have a reliable road network because we announced this a year in advance"
leaflets2 4y ago
> The French reactors were taken offline for scheduled maintenance and repairs. Wow 40% offline, that's amazingly useless quality, never heard about sth like that. Sibling comment says "unscheduled repairs because of corrosion damage". > Those hours don't count against reliability metrics Says who? If they need maintenance that often, they're unreliable sources. That "doesn't count" idea sounds like excuses the owners/responsible could come up with, to get away with their incompetence (or what's going on). It'd been nice if they had worked (apparently better than burning coal and causing climate change)

by chiph 4y ago

mijoharas 4y ago

Thank you.

brazzy 4y ago

> The French reactors were taken offline for scheduled maintenance and repairs. Those hours don't count against reliability metrics because the plants weren't expected to be operating. That is a lie. A total of 12 reactors are down for unscheduled repairs because of corrosion damage that was found during inspections in October 2021. Some of the others are down unscheduled because they used river water for cooling, which due to the hot and dry summer threatened the rivers' ecosystem.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
If there truly were unscheduled repairs then it seems odd that the parent, who's an active HN user since 2012, would throw away their credibility by spreading blatant falsehoods.
- brazzy 4y ago
  That is a really bizarre way of approaching the issue. Here's a source: https://www.reuters.com/world/france-braces-uncertain-winter-nuclear-power-shortage-looms-2022-08-30/ https://www.reuters.com/world/france-braces-uncertain-winter... And Wikipedia has something of a timeline, with sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis_since_late_2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis...
- chiph 4y ago
  I believe that Brazzy meant that the news report I linked to was lying. And that might be true. But I don't believe so because the incentives are there for EDF to get those reactors running as quickly as they can - while a reactor is idle it's not earning any money. Reactors are hugely expensive to build - but not really all that expensive to run. A power company has loan payments to make regardless if the reactor is running or not, and they're going to want to minimize any downtime.
0xblood 4y ago
>found during inspections in October 2021 That's a year ago, would you say they scheduled them for this year?
- brazzy 4y ago
  Perhaps, but I very much would not say that "Those hours don't count against reliability metrics because the plants weren't expected to be operating." These are fairly big, disconcerting issues that are taking a long time to fix, not minor repairs that are part of routine maintenance: https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/fixing-edfs-reactors-corrosion-mystery-take-several-years-french-regulator-warns-2022-05-17/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/fixing-edfs-reac...
chiph 4y ago
An unscheduled outage does have a spectrum to it - on the low/bad end there's a reactor scram. No one wants that. But there's also this case, where corrosion was found that needed to be repaired sometime "soon". Scheduling that work almost a year in the future does not count against their reliability score. It's important to note that the river/lake water does not get sent through the reactor. The distilled water used inside the reactor is closely monitored for it's quality to prevent corrosion. There are heat exchangers between the two systems. The corrosion repair was probably in one or more of the heat exchangers (you don't want leaks between the two systems) or in the outer loop cooling pumps & piping. Reactors need a reliable source of water for cooling. The ones near me use man-made lakes where they control the water level to assure a good supply of water. Recreational boating and lake-home real estate is a side benefit. If we had a California-level drought where the lake levels could not be maintained, then yes the reactors would have to be shut down. But dropping water levels are something that can be estimated and graphed on a chart. A shutdown in this case is unexpected and yes probably would be considered to be unscheduled. I'm not sure in France's case where water consumption by the reactor would threaten the ecosystem due to a hot and dry summer. Likely the reverse since the water supply wouldn't be reliable any more. So far as water consumption by the reactors - the majority of the water gets returned to the river. It's warmer when it returns and that can cause algae growth, but it can also make for some good fishing (bass, bluegill, etc). Some reactors have cooling towers that work by evaporation, and that water gets returned to nature as rain.
- brazzy 4y ago
  > Scheduling that work almost a year in the future does not count against their reliability score. Of fucking course it does! Otherwise your definition of that "score" is stupid and useless. Equipment is reliable if it is available when you need it. A technology that has half your reactor fleet down for many months, just as you most need them, is by no stretch of imagination reliable. Claiming otherwise is either delusional or dishonest.
  - leaflets2 4y ago
    Yes, imaging shutting down 40% of the roads in France, and saying: "We have a reliable road network because we announced this a year in advance"

leaflets2 4y ago

> The French reactors were taken offline for scheduled maintenance and repairs. Wow 40% offline, that's amazingly useless quality, never heard about sth like that. Sibling comment says "unscheduled repairs because of corrosion damage". > Those hours don't count against reliability metrics Says who? If they need maintenance that often, they're unreliable sources. That "doesn't count" idea sounds like excuses the owners/responsible could come up with, to get away with their incompetence (or what's going on). It'd been nice if they had worked (apparently better than burning coal and causing climate change)