Nuclear safety in France is not perfect ... Ah well?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79127
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974

Nuclear safety in France is not perfect ... Ah well?




by Christophe » 05/01/12, 16:51

Surprise! French nuclear safety is not perfect

The French fleet is perhaps the safest in the world, it is not immune to an accident and ASN recommendations are cold in the back.


ncredible! A diesel generator is missing from each reactor in French nuclear power plants! And it will cost some 2 billion euros to EDF to install them!

This is what André-Claude Lacoste, president of the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), notes in his interview with Le Monde dated January 4, 2012. In total, the application of the measures recommended by the ASN report handed over on January 3 to François Fillon would cost 10 billion euros, according to EDF quoted by AFP. A substantial bill, especially if we remember the post-Fukushima declarations of the French nuclear industry.

After the drama of March 11, 2011, Nicolas Sarkozy praised French nuclear power, considering it to be the safest in the world. He thus explained the loss of certain power plant markets abroad by the additional cost generated by this security vis-à-vis competitors.
The measures recommended by ASN

Today, a French fleet of 58 active nuclear reactors is in the hot seat. The ASN report points to several weaknesses when faced with the possibility of "extreme situations". A salutary realization at a time when climatologists do not stop repeating that global warming will, precisely, cause a multiplication of extreme metrological phenomena (storms, floods, droughts ...). Suddenly, we can read in this report:

"An accident can never be excluded."

The Fukushima disaster thus appears to have direct consequences on the new conception of French nuclear safety. After March 11, 2011, our power stations seemed to be immune to a similar tragedy: no earthquake of magnitude 9 expected nor a wave 15 meters high in sight. And, above all, installations capable, unlike those of the Japanese, of withstanding the worst ...

Of course, some unhappy minds have brought Fukushima and Le Blayais together ... On December 27, 1999, the three operating reactors of this power station built in 1981 were put into emergency shutdown following the rising waters of the Gironde estuary pushed by the winds of storm Martin and causing the power plant to flood.

An event classified as an incident (level 2 on the Ines scale) which has 7 (level of a major accident such as that of Fukushima). However, we learn from the ASN report that each reactor in French power plants will have to be fitted with "a generator and a last-resort water supply". This measure is part of the "hard core" recommended by ASN to reinforce the "robustness" of the power plants, which includes in particular:

* Premises and material resources for crisis management
* Means of communication and alert
* Technical and environmental instrumentation
* Operational dosimetry resources for workers

This list, in addition to making people shudder when we consider that we now have 58 reactors which do not all comply with these recommendations, is a precise reminder of what was lacking in Fukushima.

On March 11, 2011, it was the breakdown of the emergency generator sets, drowned in the tsunami wave, which caused the uncooled reactor cores to melt. It was also the unpreparedness of plant personnel for such a situation that considerably slowed down the first measures, such as the routing of a new power line. Evidence has testified to the lack of personal dosimeters for workers. The implementation of crisis management has also proved to be faulty with an obvious lack of qualified manpower on the site to deal with the disaster.

(...)


Suite and source: http://www.slate.fr/story/48343/nucleaire-surete-risque
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 05/01/12, 17:05

what you do not underline (here) is that this additional cost will serve as a pretext to increase the price of electricity (especially since dismantling is very expensive and must be amortized at the same time)
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 05/01/12, 20:20

Janic wrote:what you do not underline (here) is that this additional cost will serve as a pretext to increase the price of electricity (especially since dismantling is very expensive and must be amortized at the same time)


That the price of electricity goes up is the best help ... against nuclear power. They will soon no longer be able to hide the total lack of competitiveness of this more than dirty energy from the past in addition to the total lack of security and the mortgage of future generations.
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 05/01/12, 20:42

well yes nuclear is too expensive

https://www.econologie.com/forums/sortir-du- ... 0-290.html

price of the epr of flamanville: 6millard euro
power 1 650 MW

6 Geuro / 1 MW = 650 euro / W

therefore the same construction price as photovoltaics ... except that with photovoltaics there are no operating costs, no risk, no waste, no security costs paid by the state ...

of course the photovoltaic does not work day and night ... but by calculating the nuclear well is soon an economic error
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 05/01/12, 22:05

It is 10 billion to spend, according to the information, not only 2 billion, to improve the security of our current operating plants, following reflection by our infallible elites, become fallible after Fukushima, and who with these 10 billion will become infallible again !!!!
The infallibility of French nuclear power is a pipe dream, since men are not infallible !!

So sooner or later, in France we will have a Cherno-Fukushima, evacuating an entire radioactive region, emptied of all its population, in one day, for centuries, without ever being able to return to live there !!!


photovoltaics do not work day and night

but the solar thermal can store without great pain or radioactive disaster, its heat underground to work 24/24 and 365/365 days, if we do not realize, like the Romans who, already, kept in the opposite direction the winter ice for the summer, this without glass wool or cheap pipes !! !!
.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 05/01/12, 22:10

Photovoltaic solar can work day and night, but less flexibly than thermal. For that there are at least two solutions: the manufacture of formic acid and thus one obtains hydrogen stored in a stable way, the exploitation of the time zones at best to manage to resyncronize the offer with the demand (but there will have to wait for a breakthrough with superconductivity, because of the distances).

On the other hand thermal solar does not pose any problem to function day and night (storage in molten salt for the immediate needs and in thermal balloons for more or less long term, like the storage in average depth in the ground ... )

It's just a matter of political goodwill!

Flytox: Well done!
0 x
econololo
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 35
Registration: 18/09/11, 00:08




by econololo » 05/01/12, 22:18

Obamot wrote:Photovoltaic solar can work day and night, but less flexibly than thermal. For that there are at least two solutions: the manufacture of formic acid and thus one obtains hydrogen stored in a stable way, the exploitation of the time zones at best to manage to resyncronize the offer with the demand (but there will have to wait for a breakthrough with superconductivity, because of the distances).

On the other hand thermal solar does not pose any problem to function day and night (storage in molten salt for the immediate needs and in thermal balloons for more or less long term, like the storage in average depth in the ground ... )

It's just a matter of political goodwill!

Why don't all the other countries that don't do nuclear do that?
0 x
econololo
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 35
Registration: 18/09/11, 00:08




by econololo » 05/01/12, 22:19

chatelot16 wrote:price of the epr of flamanville: 6millard euro
power 1 650 MW

6 Geuro / 1 MW = 650 euro / W
You must make a calculation error. What to compare is the price per kWh ... not the W.
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 05/01/12, 22:56

it is not a calculation error

seeing the price of construction of flamanvile I wanted to compare with the price of construction of photovoltaic of the same power

the construction price is not enough to calculate the price per KWh: account must be taken of the service life and operating costs

I did this calculation to show that nuclear is expensive from construction ... unlike those who say it is such a big power that no other alternative is possible

another funny calculation: what roof area should be covered with photovoltaic to avoid flamanville? even if it's huge it's possible and less dangerous

finally now that flamanville is started as much to finish it completely and to shut down the oldest plants faster instead of spending even more to make them last

and may flamanville be the last
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 06/01/12, 03:24

Good question :
what roof surface should be covered with photovoltaic to avoid flamanville?

1) intermittence problem day night and summer winter !!
solar thermal solution stored underground in km3 (same as oil well, once exhausted)

2) if we forget that, for a maximum power of 1 MW gives if 650% of the sun used at 100kW / m1 2Km1,650 for the same peak solar power received.
At 10% efficiency, this is 10 times more than 16,5 km2, for nearly 1 million households, approximately 1,6KW each, or approximately 16,5m2 per household, a garage.
With a boiler and solar thermal concentration, we can reach 30%, 3 times less.

3) Finally, to store heat underground, how much volume of earth is needed ???
Take clay soil waterproof at 1,27KJ / ° C. liter at 300 ° C or 105KWh / m3 and therefore per hour 1650MW requires 15700m3 and over 10h for a night without sun, it takes 157000m3 or a cube of 54m on a side, heated to 300 ° C, to operate at night, over 24 hours a 72m cube and for 120 summer stored days for winter, a 356m cube side, 1/22 = 0,045 km3.
Given the size, there is no heat loss in this volume, devoid of water.

It is not very large compared to the 6 billion €, and on the surface of the Flamanville site, to drill lots of holes 2m from each other and with around 4 to 16 Km2 of parabolic cylindrical sensors (thermal efficiency at minus 20% to 40%), have completely the same result as Flamanville, power 1 MW,
24 hours a day, 24 days a day, 364 days in perpetuity
, without radioactive pollution, nor waste, without sword of Damocles of Fukushima French, without wear of nuclear power station, other than turbines at 300 ° C !!

In addition it can be very decentralized, smaller locally, without electrical transport over long distances.
So it's simple, it's not a dream and a possible achievable.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 250 guests