Page 1 on 34

EPR, to the dregs for EDF and Areva?

published: 03/11/09, 14:56
View Aumicron
Decidedly no luck for Areva with the EPR. After delays on the construction site in Finland and cost estimates significantly revised upwards, the British, French and Finnish nuclear safety authorities are calling for an improvement of the initial design of the reactor.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2009/11 ... -pays-.php

published: 03/11/09, 16:49
View Remundo
It is not the concerns of the safety authorities that could reduce the bill. But for these instances, money matters little, only security matters.

They would do better to deal with waste disposal sites, there is and there will be much more uncontrolled fission / radiation on these sites than on EPR. : Mrgreen:

published: 04/11/09, 10:50
View jonule
unless it explodes, which is good for, apparently!

finally, for once that the Nuclear Safety Authorities say something so that nuclear respect the environment and the public, we will not contradict them!

salute this great initiative and hope that the industrialists who do not know how to do concrete know how to make a nuclear power plant that does not leak too much and that does not pollute too much and hope it does not explode right away!

and merry christmas of course

published: 04/11/09, 17:15
View sulfoxide
jonule wrote:unless it explodes, which is good for, apparently!

finally, for once that the Nuclear Safety Authorities say something so that nuclear respect the environment and the public, we will not contradict them!

salute this great initiative and hope that the industrialists who do not know how to do concrete know how to make a nuclear power plant that does not leak too much and that does not pollute too much and hope it does not explode right away!

and merry christmas of course


To say that is to lack objectivity, even to be mean. : Cheesy: , or what is not better to take at face value the systematic disinformation of the "journalistic clique" : Evil: .
If the Finnish quagmire is not disputable, we must not forget to remember that all these markets include essential so-called compensation clauses which require that "the laborious local" be made to work with the equipment at his disposal, and at ratios of almost 50% when not more. This in itself, based on the national interest, has nothing to condemn, if common sense ends up winning.
It's the same for Airbus and dozens of others (poor users if you knew, ...). Going into the sharp or high tech does not change the case. What is regrettable is that the lesson is never learned. For example, a random "Sukkoi" made in india which crashed faster than they built them.

published: 04/11/09, 17:18
View sulfoxide
jonule wrote:unless it explodes, which is good for, apparently!

finally, for once that the Nuclear Safety Authorities say something so that nuclear respect the environment and the public, we will not contradict them!

salute this great initiative and hope that the industrialists who do not know how to do concrete know how to make a nuclear power plant that does not leak too much and that does not pollute too much and hope it does not explode right away!

and merry christmas of course


To say that is to lack objectivity, even to be mean. : Cheesy: , or what is not better to take at face value the systematic disinformation of the "journalistic clique" : Evil: .
If the Finnish quagmire is not disputable, we must not forget to remember that all these markets include essential so-called compensation clauses which require that "the laborious local" be made to work with the equipment at his disposal, and at ratios of almost 50% when not more. This in itself, based on the national interest, has nothing to condemn, if common sense ends up winning.
It's the same for Airbus and dozens of others (poor users if you knew, ...). Going into the sharp or high tech does not change the case. What is regrettable is that the lesson is never learned. For example, a random "Sukkoi" made in india which crashed faster than they built them.

published: 05/11/09, 11:42
View jonule
what is astonishing is why the 3 nuclear safety authorities only react today on "the initial design of the reactor": they did not read the file at the origin or what? which would mean that they accepted uh ... "cash"?

to say that these authorities are supposed to be independent!

such a waste

published: 05/11/09, 12:37
View Did67
1) I find it odd that the reactions of these organizations on the design come now ...

2) Having said that, I would still like to remind everyone that we are not playing with just anything! The risk has nothing to do with a plane which "crashes", not even if it was an A380! It is from a whole different dimension!

So, at the very least, an EPR should be without "noticeable" defect (which would not be zero risk, as there must be unforeseen events on such machinery!). Apparently this is not the case!

3) I hope CAP fanatics will read this information ...

4) And I hope that the forumThey will make the link with a discussion we had here when the CEO of EdF had claimed, in full crisis this summer, an increase of 20% over 3 years ...

published: 05/11/09, 17:05
View jonule
I'm happy to see that you realize that they are playing witch apprentice once again, that they do not know what they are doing and that we would be forced to forgive them? ...

published: 05/11/09, 17:29
View Remundo
In France, it's not complicated. :D

The EDF / AREVA Consortium makes rain and shine in the electricity mix, aided in this by their state "right arm" of the CEA.

With the President, they even have even stronger support.

So do not worry, EPR will be well built and will fission to anyone better. He will be neither worse nor better than his little REP brothers.

published: 06/11/09, 00:38
View bagua
frankly I doubt that sarko knows what it means nuclear fission
it is surely its "independent" expert-advisers who make the decision otherwise it will replace another power plant or is it just to have more power?
if it is to replace the production of Fessenheim so much no longer?