Slashdot Mirror


France's Oldest Nuclear Plant To Close This Year (phys.org)

mdsolar writes: France is to close down its oldest nuclear power plant, at the center of a row with neighboring Germany and Switzerland, by the end of this year, a green minister said Sunday. "The timeline is one the president has repeated to me several times, it's 2016," said Emmanuelle Cosse, who was named to President Francois Hollande's cabinet last month, referring to the Fessenheim plant. Cosse was speaking to French media after a row sparked Friday when Germany demanded that France close down Fessenheim following reports that a 2014 incident there was worse than earlier portrayed. France's Nuclear Safety Agency said that safety at the plant was "overall satisfactory" but that the government's energy policy "could lead to different choices" regarding the facility, which is near the German and Swiss borders. It said there was "no need" to shut the plant from a nuclear safety point of view. France has promised to cut reliance on nuclear energy from more than 75 percent to 50 percent by shutting 24 reactors by 2025, while stepping up reliance on renewable energy.

34 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Nukes rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope they don't replace it with 50 km^2 of solar panels...

    1. Re:Nukes rule by prefec2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      They will not build a new one. First, Germany is super annoyed that they withheld information on an accident in the plant, as Germany would directly suffer from the consequences if the plant goes Fukushima. Second, EDF tries to build a new nuclear plant in the UK (Hinkley Point C). Their government is totally behind it. Unfortunately, the EDF finance director resigned as he sees the plant to be a economic disaster (the union also think it is stupid and will cost jobs) http://www.theguardian.com/env...

      Therefore, it is not very plausible that they will build a new reactor anywhere.

    2. Re:Nukes rule by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we're looking ahead by more than ten years, it is by no means clear that an EDF-built nuclear plant would generate cheaper electricity than a 2025-market PV installation in southern parts of France. So an economic argument makes perfect sense here.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Nukes rule by AlterEager · · Score: 2

      They will not build a new one.[...]

      Therefore, it is not very plausible that they will build a new reactor anywhere.

      Uh, they are already building a new one. Fessenhiem can be closed because it will be replaced by Flamanville.

    4. Re:Nukes rule by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      I hope they don't replace it with 50 km^2 of solar panels...

      They'll depend more on coal, like Germany, spend a bunch of money but make only minimal net progress on CO2 reduction.

    5. Re:Nukes rule by prefec2 · · Score: 2

      Oh indeed they are building one. Initial cost estimates were 3.3 billion € and are now 8.5 billion €. Also it should have been completed in 2012, 2016 and no 2017. After several anomalies in the material and construction, they are at 10.5 billion € and assume finishing in 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      From a German point of view, the risk of this new plant a smaller than from Fessenheim, as Flamanville is located at the Channel. Anyway, it does not looks like they will really be able to finish it. And when they are able to do so, it will never produce cheap enough energy.

    6. Re:Nukes rule by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      At the price the UK is paying for Hinkley Point C to be built by EDF, it is guaranteed that wind, gas and coal are all cheaper, and solar probably will be too by the time it's finished. Even with battery backup.

      EDF only agreed because the government guaranteed to pay them way over the odds for the energy generated, on top of the usual subsidies. Now even that gravy train isn't looking too attractive to EDF, since the plant is planned to cost £18bn and experience says it will cost some multiple of that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Nukes rule by Chas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if the plant goes Fukushima.

      I think the chances of a reactor melting down after losing power due to getting slammed by a tsunami and flooding out due to having an insufficiently high sea wall are pretty slim when they're located in the middle of the French countryside.

      I really, REALLY wish people would stop using incidents like Fukushima out of context like this.
      It makes the people doing it sound like fucking morons.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    8. Re:Nukes rule by WhiplashII · · Score: 2

      For reference, a human's breathing is about half a ton per year of CO2.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    9. Re:Nukes rule by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      The trouble with solar is that we're too small, too dense and too far north to meet our energy needs. The trouble with wind is we're too dense and too small to meet all out energy needs. In fact the combination of as much solar as possible, as much wind as possible and as much tidal power as possible is insufficient to cover the energy needs of teh UK.

      Gas makes us strategically dependent on Russia. Coal involves pushing deaths off on to some other country, rather than being safe, so that's unethical too. Plus coal actually dumps more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear.

      So sure make plenty of solar and wind, but it's not going to cut it alone.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Nukes rule by prefec2 · · Score: 2

      I have seen values for Germany up to 13 t CO2 per capita. While this sucks big time, one third is produced by traffic, another third is from heating

      So what? France doesn't have road traffic and heating?

      Have I implied that? Nope.

      However, Germany is significant colder than France which requires more heating. France is more centralized which may result in less daily traffic. Usually in France they do not drive not so obsessive big cars as some Germans do (especially in the South).

      http://www.weatheronline.co.uk...
      http://www.weatheronline.co.uk...

      One key source are the lignite coal plants, which could be switched off today.

      FYI https://www.cleanenergywire.or...
      It would be nice to have a similar source for France. However, I could not find one.

      France has been generating 80-90% of it's electricity from low carbon sources since the 1990's and you expect kudos for thinking about maybe closing down some fucking lignite burning power plants at some undefined time between now and 2020.

      I personally, would prefer to shut them down right now. They are only still a thing because the social democrats do not want to harm RWE which is a huge source of income in North Rhine-Westphalia. There is no disagreement on that topic. I do not like them. They suck. But nuclear is not the answer to the problem. It is just another problem.

      Oh, fucking great, you're proud that they're going to close 13% of the lignite burning plants.

      No I am not happy with that and you would have already noticed that when you would really try to understand anything I am saying, but you rather rattle about how mean I am because I do not support you nuclear is better idea.

      Are we going to have more high particulate pollution days this summer when the wind happens to be blowing from Germany?

      If the coal plants are still on? Very unlikely as it would require wind blowing from the north east to the south west. But you might want to observe the values
      http://aqicn.org/city/paris/
      http://aqicn.org/city/berlin/

      Anyway, in summer Germany most likely requires less power from coal plants as we additionally will have more energy from solar power. Energy consumption is higher in winter.

      How many people are being killed every year by the air pollution from your biomass and coal plants? 10's of Chernobyl's a year? 100's? 1000's?

      Do you have any reliable figures? And still, I do not want coal plants. Coal sucks. I also do not want to have to cleanup the aftermath of a nuclear plant blowing up and storing the waste for thousands of years.

    11. Re:Nukes rule by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      If we're looking ahead by more than ten years, it is by no means clear that an EDF-built nuclear plant would generate cheaper electricity than a 2025-market PV installation in southern parts of France. So an economic argument makes perfect sense here.

      Nice made up numbers you've got there. Installed PV without subsidy is currently cheaper than nuclear and installation and panel costs have continued to fall at around 20% per year. Wind is way cheaper, and the UK has some of the best wind sites in the world just off shore. Why don't you research the real costs and come back with real current numbers, not something from 20 years ago or that you made up.

    12. Re:Nukes rule by Chas · · Score: 2

      No. You have to be retarded NOT to. Given full information.

      Not the shiny-happy-speak that the entire renewables industry is pushing, along with the "Nuclear = BOMBZ!!!!" movement.

      And what's going to threaten the structural integrity of a powerplant in the middle of the fucking french countryside? It's not like they're a high frequency earthquake zone. And nobody's stupid enough to NOT do geological surveys on land where they're going to build a reactor. So the possibilities of it disappearing down a sinkhole are slim. Same thing goes for building it on a flood plain.

      And deliberate bombing? You DO understand that these sites have security to prevent that right?

      So what are you expecting? A meteor to fall out of the sky and god-rod the site?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  2. Germany and France arguing... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Funny

    Germany and France arguing... what could possibly go wrong? It's not like there's any historical precedent or anything... where, you know, Germany was in the wrong in the past...

    1. Re:Germany and France arguing... by prefec2 · · Score: 2

      Germany and France about many things. That is the normal thing you do with your neighbour. You talk to them about things. It is a much better solution than the one used in the last centuries where we waged war against each other. We argue about refugees, immigrants, nuclear plants, and support each other, e.g., in Africa and in Syria. Also the Greek bailout scheme from Merkel not only saved German banks, but also French banks. So we cooperate on those things. Beside that, there are many personal contacts and relationships between Germany and France. Therefore, it is very unlikely that history will repeat itself. Even the Nazis in both countries agree on working together.

    2. Re:Germany and France arguing... by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is utter nonsense and the many regular visits from Germans and French in their respective partner towns and cities tell a different stories. True there is prejudice on both sides of the border. For example, that Germans can't cook (which is only true for North Germans ;-)) and the French want to control every joint company and endeavour (which is so true, especially with Airbus Group where the CEO is Tom Enders, oh wait he is German, but then it must be true in all other cases). And yes, there is a feeling in Germany that the French want to dominate and there is a feeling in France that France cannot really compete. In the end this is rubbish. However, Hollande is not really a visionary President nor was it Sarkozi. And the same applies to Schröder and now Merkel. However, Merkel might have done a step in the right direction lately. Anyway, I am much more optimistic about the German-French relations.

    3. Re:Germany and France arguing... by tigersha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, I live 7 km from the border and it is amazing how little contact there really is across the Rhine. Might have to do with the fact that the main train bridge was blown up at the end of WWII and is STILL not operational.

      The only place around here where French and Germans mingle a lot and work together is in Basel, in Switzerland, right at the point where the 3 countries meet.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  3. So.... by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Better titles "France's power becomes less reliable, more expensive", " France now so ruled by the rest of Europe it can't even stand up to Switzerland", and "French president to lose next election, nuclear power plants to be brought back online".

    1. Re:So.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      The French have big problems with nuclear power at the moment. The biggest company running their nuclear fleet, EDF, is in serious trouble. It has plants being built in other European countries that are way, way over budget, and is now looking likely to back out of building the two new reactors at Hinkley Point in the UK.

      The basic problem is cost. EDF has a number of old reactors that need decommissioning and replacing. The new reactors are turning out to be extremely expensive. The pair in the UK are projected to cost £18bn ($26bn) but the identical ones they already started on are approximately 3x over budget and massively delayed.

      So EDF is faced with massive costs from old reactors and a need to borrow massive amounts of money to build the new ones. Even the guarantee from the UK government to pay way, way over the odds for the electricity generated isn't enough any more. The French government was trying to reduce it's stake in EDF, but has recently had to switch to buying up shares again just to keep the lights on.

      On top of all that, their neighbours are building a lot of renewable energy that really pushes prices down. Peak pricing used to be a massive earner for EDF, but now Germany is exporting extremely cheap energy during those times. EDF doesn't want to adapt, can't really adapt because all its cash is tied up in failing nuclear projects.

      They should have fixed the roof while the sun was shining, and installed some solar panels at the same time.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:So.... by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      EDF is simply too bureaucratic and inefficient. That often happens in France. Right now Russia is building several new reactors, and quite cheaply at that. A new Belorussian power plant (2.4GWte) is due to come online in two years, and it's projected to cost around $9 billions.

      This is actually extremely cost-effective. Wind generators for the same capacity (with load factor taken into account) would cost about three time that price.

  4. Re:Tell the Germans to fuck off by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    https://www.google.de/maps/@47.9078423,7.5711826,14.75z

    Distance from Germany is measured rather in meter than kilometer. With prevailing winds from the west.

    About the pollution: Currently none that is made public by French authorities. What became public, however, is that a bit ago, they kept under all blankets that the reactor was out of control (control rod control and sensors were down due to water entering the elctronics) and a manual emergency shutdown with borate flooding had to be performed.

    It's debatable if it was technically "out of control" as long as they were able to do an emergency shutdown, but it's gross negliance and irresponsible if an emergency shutdown is NOT reported as an incident.

    Add this to the bad overall situation after 40 years of operation, microscopic fractures in the reactor vessel and the plant having more "incidents" than 3 year old after a soda spree....

    This is a dirty bomb waiting to happen.

    --
    bickerdyke
  5. mdsolar's on a roll by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    15 Anti-nuke FUD submissions this week alone.

    Do you not have a job or something?

  6. Not the oldest and not the first to close by Anonyme+Connard · · Score: 4, Informative

    France's oldest nuclear plant is Brennilis. It ran from 1967 to 1985. It is still not fully decommissioned, this work being more complex and more expensive than foreseen...
    And there is also Superphénix, running from 1986 to 1996 and far more complex to dismantle, because of plutonium and sodium.

  7. Rubbish by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Fessenheim is an old plant which had many accidents in recent years. For example they had to introduce large quantities of Bohr into the reactor cooling to inhibit chain reaction because they were unable to insert the regulator rods. Yes I know Bohr is also used during regular operation. However, in much lower quantities. They also neglected to report all details which would have been necessary for Germany to prepare in case of an accident. Fessenheim is directly at the border to Germany.

    1. Re:Rubbish by stud9920 · · Score: 2

      Bohr the physicist, Boron or Bohrium ? The first has a finite supply with a halflife of a few years (and stopped being produced in 1962), the second is more available, the 3rd one is a heavy, unstable elemetn with a halflife of 61 seconds.

    2. Re:Rubbish by prefec2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, associative error. I meant Boron, and to be more correct I refer to boronic acid. In German Boron is called Bor (and so it was substituted by Bohr).
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  8. Re:Tell the Germans to fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    To be precise there is a non-zero distance between that reactor and germany, as the reactor isn't built at the shores of the rhine itself, but inside a channel built parralel to the rhine. There is an island around 1km wide between the reactor and germany. But it won't help all the people living in those german cities Speyer (with its great cathedral) Mannheim Mainz Koblenz Bonn (which was the german capital for a long time and now there are still lots of ministries and governmental employees) Cologne (which has over one million residents) Düsseldorf and Duisburg... They all live downstream and will get the radiating shit from fessenheim if there is a leak. Its at least 2 million germans directly affected.

  9. Replace nuclear power with unclear power? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    France made a clear choice decades ago, has stuck with it, enjoys low costs as a result of standardization, and is not about to change. France has no oil and little coal, so the French Greens have never received that fountain of money from the fossil fuel lobby that their counterparts in so many other countries benefit from.

    That "reduce nuclear power to 50%" campaign plank of Hollande's will be forgotten about as soon as Le Pen takes office.

    1. Re:Replace nuclear power with unclear power? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Low cost? France's nuclear obsession has cost it dearly. EDF has run out of cash and can't even afford its current decommissioning and new plant contracts. The government is fed up of subsidising them.

      Don't mistake low kWh prices for cheap energy. France pays for it through the massive subsidy that its nuclear industry has enjoyed. The idea was that it would become profitable and not need continuing subsidy, but the plan has failed utterly.

      That's why France is drastically cutting its nuclear fleet. It's way too expensive, and there are better options now. EDF's days of being a welfare queen are over.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Replace nuclear power with unclear power? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The greatest advantage that the French nuclear program has enjoyed is lack of organized opposition and the endless delaying tactics that you activists use in other countries to increase costs through endless legal delays. Any targeted energy program can be made to cost too much by imposing delay after delay.

      Some illumination on the fossil industry's ownership of the antinuclear movement:
      http://atomicinsights.com/esso...
      http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013...
      In contrast, the French oil giant Elf-Aquitaine (now Total) has always been a refiner and distributor, rather than owning the production it takes to be a sponsor against competing forms of energy

      Some choice general commentary from a leading environmentalist on your endless stream of lies:
      http://www.theguardian.com/com...

      I predict that one of the more interesting byproducts of today's low oil prices will be the antinuclear movement running out of money.

  10. Re:It's more expensive ALL energy. by AlterEager · · Score: 2

    So France subsidies nuclear power and meanwhile purchases electricity from Germany?

    Not quite. Sometimes France imports from Germany, sometimes it exports. At the moment (14:00 CET, 7/3/2016) France is exporting around 2GW to Germany.

    Also, not all French electricity is nuclear, at this moment it's 73% nuke, 13% hydro, 8% gas and 3% coal.

    http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/

  11. Renewable energy cheaper by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    Turns out switching to 100% renewable energy is cheaper for France. https://100.org/100-goes-globa...

  12. Re:Tell the Germans to fuck off by tigersha · · Score: 2

    The plant is about 500m from the border. The border fence of the plant pretty much IS the border.

    --
    The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  13. Re:We KNOW it won't. TODAY. by tsqr · · Score: 2

    Is this some kind of new slang maybe?

    No, not new, and not really slang, but more commonly used in the UK than US. Pronounced to rhyme with "ow" (as in, "that hurts!"). Meaning "noisy dispute or quarrel."