The closure of Fessenheim, an ecological fault

[izentrop]

And it's nothing 42 years for a central maintained and updated standards added since Fukushima

Operators aim for 60 years of life for Swiss nuclear power plants https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/10932290 ... isses.html

the American regulator authorizes a plant to operate 80 years https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-servi ... ns-1155351

[sicetaitsimple]

What do you want, before bringing croissants to Julie Gayet on a scooter, FH flirted with Eva Joly, or rather her constituents!
We can understand that it has evolved ...

[Eric DUPONT]

And it's nothing 42 years for a central maintained and updated standards added since Fukushima

Operators aim for 60 years of life for Swiss nuclear power plants https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/10932290 ... isses.html

the American regulator authorizes a plant to operate 80 years https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-servi ... ns-1155351

It is on that if Fessenenheim had farted (a terrorist attack) we would have created new standards to declare that all the power stations are on since the upgrades to the standards of after Fessenheim.

[GuyGadebois]

And it's nothing 42 years for a central maintained and updated standards added since Fukushima

Operators aim for 60 years of life for Swiss nuclear power plants https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/10932290 ... isses.html

the American regulator authorizes a plant to operate 80 years https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-servi ... ns-1155351

And what do I care about ricans and chocolate eaters?

[jean.caissepas]

And it's nothing 42 years for a central maintained and updated standards added since Fukushima

It depends on several things that cannot be fixed:
- The reactor vessel (and yes, it wears out due to radiation and micro-cracks. When there is too little material between the end of the crack and the exterior of the vessel, the reactor must be closed)
- The steam exchanger between the primary and secondary circuit, which is subjected to enormous thermal expansion constraints at each restart of the reactor (at least every 10 years and at each stop / reload of the core). There are so many constraints that this enormous exchanger is suspended by the incoming or outgoing pipes and that it is not bolted to the ground (too much expansion). This part cannot be changed because it is radioactive, like the water / vapor of the primary circuit.

Currently, all EDF and other specialists regularly inspect these 2 parts of the reactor to validate or not to extend the life of the reactors.

[izentrop]

- The reactor vessel (and yes, it wears out due to radiation and micro-cracks. When there is too little material between the end of the crack and the exterior of the vessel, the reactor must be closed)

fantasy or reality? https://www.irsn.fr/FR/connaissances/In ... AQ.aspx#9b

[sicetaitsimple]

It depends on several things that cannot be fixed:
- .....
- The steam exchanger between the primary and secondary circuit, which is subjected to enormous thermal expansion constraints at each restart of the reactor (at least every 10 years and at each stop / reload of the core). There are so many constraints that this enormous exchanger is suspended by the incoming or outgoing pipes and that it is not bolted to the ground (too much expansion). This part cannot be changed because it is radioactive, like the water / vapor of the primary circuit.

Ooh there! Must quickly tell EDF.

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-fi ... house.html

[Janic]

sicetaitsimple wrote:
Yes, at one point we necessarily end up being "right"! The "green lobby", or rather anti-nuclear, it has been saying over and over for 42 years that Fessenheim should be closed because it will "blow us up" mouth".

and the nuclear lobby kept repeating that neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima could arrive because heaps of security would prevent them. It's like volcanic eruptions where ocean plate ruptures happen when and where you least expect them.

[Paul72]

It is a catamaran only for the supply of electricity, if we do things in reverse. Pero I am not against closing plants at the end of their life or even a little before (as long as they hardly pollute and they have already paid for themselves) but on condition that this is part of a real plan of energy renovation: reduction of energy needs (efficiency and sobriety starting with buildings), renewal of sources of electricity supply, adapted distribution networks, storage for renewables etc ... Excluding at this level I find this always very confused, obvious lack of vision, ambition, reluctance to develop new energies (both nuclear and renewable moreover it blocks everywhere)

[izentrop]

I'm not against closing end-of-life plants or even a little earlier (as long as they hardly pollute and have already paid for themselves) but on condition that this is part of a real renovation plan energy: reduction of energy needs (efficiency and sobriety starting with buildings), renewal of electricity supply sources, adapted distribution networks, storage for renewables etc ...

Okay

reluctance to develop new energies (both nuclear and renewable, moreover, it blocks everywhere)

Above all, the techniques are not yet developed.

Here we turn the oxen without having a replacement to pull the plow ... Uh bad example because it is the plow that had to be turned.

Humans continue to do things in reverse.