3 ms·

Flamanville 3 is a new reactor, which was first connected to the grid late December 2024. Its standby consumption seems to be roughly the same as the other reac

by crote 2y ago

Flamanville 3 is a new reactor, which was first connected to the grid late December 2024. Its standby consumption seems to be roughly the same as the other reactors. I'm not an expert but to me it looks like they are still in some kind of testing/verification/certification phase? According to its operator's website[0] they ran into some minor technical issues during ramp-up, which of course have to be fixed as well. The alternative is going into full production before testing has been finished, but that's how we got Chernobyl. I'd rather have it operate at an energy loss for a few months so they can carefully work out all the teething problems than have it irradiate a decent bunch of France and England. [0]: https://www.edf.fr/la-centrale-nucleaire-de-flamanville-3-epr/les-actualites-de-la-centrale-nucleaire-de-flamanville-3-epr/actualites-reglementaires-du-reacteur-ndeg3-de-flamanville-janvier-2025 https://www.edf.fr/la-centrale-nucleaire-de-flamanville-3-ep...

scrotesmcgotes 2y ago
[flagged]
- MollyGodiva 2y ago
  It is going through normal calibration procedures for a new reactor. Completely normal.
- minipci1321 2y ago
  Check out: https://www.history.com/news/chernobyl-nuclear-disaster-7-people-who-played-crucial-role https://www.history.com/news/chernobyl-nuclear-disaster-7-pe... Look up the section for Anatoly Dyatlov
- crote 2y ago
  So you're saying Chernobyl wasn't caused by hurried and ill-prepared testing of a safety feature they failed to verify during initial startup and instead had to do years later during regular operation? I guess the grid controller requesting a pause of the power reduction to compensate for another plant going offline didn't happen either, and the test wasn't pushed back from the day shift to the completely unprepared night shift - and I guess they didn't manage to botch the entire procedure by placing the reactor in an extremely unstable state from which recovery was impossible due to a known design quirk kept secret from its operators?
  - cdumler 2y ago
    > So you're saying Chernobyl wasn't caused by hurried and ill-prepared testing of a safety feature they failed to verify during initial startup and instead had to do years later during regular operation? I'll say it wasn't. You're right about the issues; however, the root cause comes from a culture that views any form of problem as a personal fault. These guys were just the end result of a long list of fails. When you treat any form of failure as personal, there is perverse incentive to ignore or hide faults until all of it lines up, ie the Swiss-cheese model. The people running Chernobyl shouldn't have been in that position in the first place: untrained, ill-informed, and under-the-gun to perform.

by crote 2y ago

scrotesmcgotes 2y ago

[flagged]

MollyGodiva 2y ago
It is going through normal calibration procedures for a new reactor. Completely normal.
minipci1321 2y ago
Check out: https://www.history.com/news/chernobyl-nuclear-disaster-7-people-who-played-crucial-role https://www.history.com/news/chernobyl-nuclear-disaster-7-pe... Look up the section for Anatoly Dyatlov
crote 2y ago
So you're saying Chernobyl wasn't caused by hurried and ill-prepared testing of a safety feature they failed to verify during initial startup and instead had to do years later during regular operation? I guess the grid controller requesting a pause of the power reduction to compensate for another plant going offline didn't happen either, and the test wasn't pushed back from the day shift to the completely unprepared night shift - and I guess they didn't manage to botch the entire procedure by placing the reactor in an extremely unstable state from which recovery was impossible due to a known design quirk kept secret from its operators?
- cdumler 2y ago
  > So you're saying Chernobyl wasn't caused by hurried and ill-prepared testing of a safety feature they failed to verify during initial startup and instead had to do years later during regular operation? I'll say it wasn't. You're right about the issues; however, the root cause comes from a culture that views any form of problem as a personal fault. These guys were just the end result of a long list of fails. When you treat any form of failure as personal, there is perverse incentive to ignore or hide faults until all of it lines up, ie the Swiss-cheese model. The people running Chernobyl shouldn't have been in that position in the first place: untrained, ill-informed, and under-the-gun to perform.