
Why is the Fessenheim 2 nuclear power plant closing in France? - ericdanielski
https://www.sustainability-times.com/expert/a-safe-and-profitable-nuclear-plant-is-closing-in-france-why/
======
freeflight
It's weird of the article gives plenty of direct citations from nuclear
operators, while at the same time acting like French 40+ year old fission tech
doesn't have any issues [0] or sustainability problems, and how the French
could dare to shut down one of _their first_ reactors.

Particularly in the context that most discussions surrounding nuclear fission
power generation lead with "modern designs and reactors being so much better",
now we are apparently at the point where even running the same reactors close
to a century supposedly represents no problem?

Afaik originally the life-span for most reactors of that kind was 40 years,
how far past that are we willing to go? And what consequences will there be
if, once gain, the "one in a million that would never happen" incident leads
to yet another catastrophe?

[0] [http://watt-logic.com/2016/11/25/french-nuclear-problem/](http://watt-
logic.com/2016/11/25/french-nuclear-problem/)

~~~
fcantournet
We have a independent national authority (ASN ~ Nuclear Safety Authority)
which is tasked to assess the security of all nuclear power plants and
certifies them for periods of 10y.

The plant that is being closed was certified by the ASN. The 40y lifespan was
the MINIMUM certified lifespan of the power plant. It could very well run for
another 40y. These kinds of equipment are modernised every 10 years during the
shudowns. The power plant itself is NOT the one that was built 40y ago.

~~~
onli
You have a very focused elite building system in which the big universities
creating the future members of the elite are heavily financed and influenced
by pro-nuclear organizations. That goes especially for politicans, but
includes engineers. The pro-nuclear propaganda repeated by the people that go
through this is frightening, many of them are completely brainwashed.

In no way can the ASN be really independent, as it is staffed with the people
that went through this system.

~~~
jjoonathan
If we (US) hadn't stopped building nuclear in the 80s, and had simply kept
building at the same rate, our grid would be (near) zero carbon _today_. Not
several decades from now if we hustle our asses off, _today_.

But that's not what happened. The anti-nuclear team won and we collectively
made the responsible decision to fill our atmosphere with CO2 instead. Yay?

~~~
onli
Yes, that's the a common talking point that is false, "Nuclear energy does not
produce CO2, or almost none". But you only see that it is false if you look at
complete lifecycle analysis of building the plants, running the plants, mining
and transporting the uranium, transportintg the waste, dismantling the plant
etc.

You can try to argue that the US would have less carbon emissions than today -
something I'm inclined to believe given how much fossil fuels are used today -
but in no way would it be zero.

~~~
jjoonathan
Did you even glance at the numbers?

    
    
        Tech       gCO2/kWh
        
        Coal         920 
        Gas          490
        Solar-Util    48
        Solar-Roof    41
        Solar-Conc    27
        Geothermal    38
        Hydro         24
        Wind-Offshore 12
        Nuclear       12  <---
        Wind-Onshore  11
    

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-
gas_emis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-
gas_emissions_of_energy_sources)

~~~
onli
It's my understanding that these numbers are not undisputed. Even
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290...](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x)
lets enough opportunity to have that calculation be changed, though there does
not seem to be any doubt that the emissions are minimal compared to fossil
fuels. But that's not a point I made.

But you are right, I shouldn't have made it sound as if no one produced such
numbers.

~~~
retrac
Even if it is a full order of magnitude larger, it still compares quite
favourably to fossil fuels.

~~~
onli
Right, that's part of what I was citing. But the people vehemently opposing
nuclear power plants, like me, are generally also opposing fossil fuels. So
that doesn't change anything.

~~~
yongjik
Maybe you do, but most people "vehemently opposing nuclear power plants" only
pay some lip service to fossil fuels. I've yet to see an anti-nuclear activist
declaring that Germany and Japan have nothing to be proud of, considering
their carbon footprint. Granted I didn't search very hard, but every anti-
nuclear opinion piece I've come across praises how "Germany and Japan showed"
that it's possible to shut down nuclear power. The staggering environmental
cost of fossil fuels is at best left in a footnote.

~~~
funcDropShadow
Nevertheless, Germany's per capita CO2 emission per year is 9.44 tons [1],
Japan's is 9.70 tons [2] and the US's is 15.52 tons [3] in 2016. Sorry, I
couldn't find a more recent source. All that despite, Germany is shutting down
nuclear and it has already reduced its usage of brown coal (Braunkohle) and
stone coal (Steinkohle) in the last 10 years [4]. So, please explain how the
US with higher relience on nuclear is faring better?

The valid criticism from many including the green party in Germany is, the
shutdown of coal plant could go faster. But it already started.

[1]: [https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/germany-
co2-emis...](https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/germany-
co2-emissions/) [2]: [https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/japan-
co2-emissi...](https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/japan-
co2-emissions/) [3]: [https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/us-
co2-emissions...](https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/us-
co2-emissions/) [4]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-
out#/media...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-
out#/media/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg)

------
Reedx
> The saddest part of this story is that there is no new renewable plant being
> built overnight to replace Fessenheim. It will be replaced almost entirely
> by fossil fuels.

> It’s worth noting that, as Fessenheim closes, Germany is commissioning a new
> coal-fired power plant, in Datteln

Exactly. Why are so many people ignoring what happens in step 2?

When nuclear is shut down, it gets replaced with something worse. Often coal!

 _" German electricity was nearly 10 times dirtier than France's in 2016...
Germany's overall emissions increased in 2016 as a result of the country
closing one of its nuclear plants and replacing it with coal and natural gas"_
[1]

 _" It is one unintended consequence of the Fukushima nuclear disaster almost
a decade ago, which forced Japan to all but close its nuclear power program.
Japan now plans to build as many as 22 new coal-burning power plants — one of
the dirtiest sources of electricity"_[2]

Nuclear energy is also far safer than most other sources, about the same as
renewables.

 _" Nuclear and renewable sources are similarly safe: in the range of 0.005 to
0.07 deaths per TWh. Both nuclear and renewable energy sources have death
rates hundreds of times lower than coal and oil, and are tens to hundreds of
times safer than gas."_[3]

1\. [https://environmentalprogress.org/big-
news/2017/2/11/german-...](https://environmentalprogress.org/big-
news/2017/2/11/german-electricity-was-nearly-10-times-dirtier-than-frances-
in-2016)

2\. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/climate/japan-coal-
fukush...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/climate/japan-coal-
fukushima.html)

3\. [https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-
energy](https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy)

~~~
jhayward
> _When nuclear is shut down, it gets replaced with something worse. Often
> coal!_

The implication that this is what happened in Germany is misinformation. None
of the energy production of retired nuclear plants in Germany was replaced by
coal. Renewable energy replaced the vast majority of it over the last 10
years, and coal use is down by 50% in that period.

~~~
ogrisel
Here are some numbers to back this statement:

[https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-
sources&p...](https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-
sources&period=annual&year=all)

It's true that in the first 3 years after the decision to speed-up the closure
of nuclear in Germany in 2011, coal use increased. But more recently it went
down drastically and was replaced mostly by wind and solar on a yearly basis.

Here is similar data but not just Germany (using the data from the 2020 BP
statistical review):

[https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/ogrisel/energy_charts/bl...](https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/ogrisel/energy_charts/blob/master/electricity.ipynb)

~~~
enaaem
They still use a lot of brown coal, which is dirty as hell. The way I see it,
they could have had reduced the CO2 output more by keeping nuclear and
investing into renewables. Missed potential really.

The debate is not renewables vs nuclear. It's nuclear vs fossil .

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
The reason for that is the coal lobby, not necessity.

Datteln 4 is going online because the government has already approved it, and
is afraid that it will get sued if it turns around and rescinds the approval.

------
steeve
Few things:

1\. The only body qualified to asses the safety of a nuclear power plant is
the french nuclear safety agency, Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN)

2\. ASN deemed its security "very satisfying" [1]

3\. The usual fallacious arguments have been debunked time and time again
(seismic fault, various upgrades, more incidents than other plants etc...)

4\. Read the actual report on Fessenheim from ASN [1]

The actual answer from the article:

 _The answer to why Fessenheim is closing is sadly one of politics. It goes
back to 2012 when then President of France, Francois Hollande, made a deal to
guarantee the support of the Greens (les Verts). Hollande promised France
would reduce its reliance on nuclear to 50% instead of 75% of all
electricity._

Part of the deal was to close Fessenheim.

1\. [https://www.asn.fr/L-ASN/L-ASN-en-region/Grand-
Est/Installat...](https://www.asn.fr/L-ASN/L-ASN-en-region/Grand-
Est/Installations-nucleaires/Centrale-nucleaire-de-Fessenheim)

------
_iyig
Reminds me of the German government’s decision, made in the wake of the
Fukushima disaster, to phase out all German nuclear power:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-
out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out)

An immediate effect of this decision was to increase Germany’s reliance on
fossil fuels, including “brown coal” which is strip-mined in an
extraordinarily environmentally-destructive process. Another effect was to
increase the German grid’s reliance on nuclear power generated in France.

~~~
_ph_
The German grid does not rely on nuclear power from France. Germany is a net
exporter. Of course, with an European electricity network, there is a lot of
electricity moved around every day, often reversing directions in a few hours,
depending on local needs and production.

~~~
revax
It is overall a net exporter but in winter when there is no wind, Germany rely
more on its neighborhood.

Average are misleading.

~~~
jnxx
German winters are quite windy, especially near the coast.

Solar (photovoltaic) has its maximum around noon, when there is high demand.

The irony is that in summer, it has happened in several warm years now that
nuclear power plants in France had to shut down - they are cooled by rivers
and when the water level becomes too low, they need to shut off to maintain
safety and avoid ecological damage. These are the times when Germany exports
most electricity to France.

~~~
rnhmjoj
> Solar (photovoltaic) has its maximum around noon, when there is high demand.

I think it's exactly the opposite: see [1]. It's a increasingly big problem as
more renewable sources are deployed. The peak demand happens at mid-evening
and morning hours while, as you said, peak production from renewables is
around noon. A possible solution is energy storage but, as far as I now, it's
not yet common and not always available depending on the location and type of
plant.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve)

------
exabrial
> Put differently, in 2019 Fessenheim Unit 1 and 2 generated more electricity
> than all the solar panels in France combined

I learned a term recently called "base load supply". Essentially, something
like a nuclear plant is hard to ramp/up down with changing grid demands, but
it great at steady-state operation and can run like that for years. This takes
care of the minimum load placed on the grid which is fairly predictable.

Nuclear strengths' play an important role in an "all of the above" approach.

~~~
steeve
Actually, in France, nuclear has to give way to renewables. And because they
are intermittent, has to rapidly ramp up/down.

See
[https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1247460245460443138?...](https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1247460245460443138?s=20)

~~~
mlyle
Renewables and nuclear -both- have the problem that you can't control when you
get the generation.

Nuclear wants to be constant-- both because ramping isn't super fast and
because you want to recover large capital costs. Renewables ... produce
varying amounts pseudo-periodically and unpredictably, which is even worse.
Neither matches conventionally to demand.

The only way around this is technologies that store (hydroelectric, batteries,
power-to-gas-to-power, solar thermal) or burning fossil fuels to supplement.
Overprovisioning is also necessary: it takes a lot less storage / peaker
plants / etc to meet 99th percentile demand with 150% of required generation
capacity than 101%.

Renewables and nuclear do complement each other a little bit in reducing
volatility.

~~~
temac
If I'm not mistaken nuclear in France is actually pilotable quite fast, it is
not instantaneous but it is really fast. You cover the risk of shortest term
high variance with other means, but they basically already exist (hydro, gaz)
and you don't need much.

This is not necessarily the case for all nuclear power plant, it has to be
designed for that.

~~~
mlyle
It depends what you call fast. It's my understanding that PWR's like this ramp
from 50% to 90% in about an hour.

But nuclear power plants have a huge capital cost, so you really don't want
them to operate for half of the day at 40% or they're even more expensive for
the power generated.

And going below a minimum output power means a long time to get power back,
which is why in North America power prices sometimes go negative (don't want
to shut down).

------
eqvinox
actual answer: it's right on the border to Germany and has a long history of
low-level incidents, and the Germans were starting to get seriously pissed off
at that.

It's also the oldest nuclear power plant France was still running.

Oh and also the Rhine valley is seismically active, even if only at a low
level.

~~~
scohesc
So in other words, Germany (with some the most serious "green tech" laws) is
basically forcing France to shut down their plant, even though it's been
operating mostly fine and has been actually helping fight climate change for a
long time already.

~~~
eqvinox
I have no idea whether it's even possible to find out how the different
reasons have factored into the decision; it might as well just have been due
to the age or seismic activity and nothing else...

But, in reality, it was probably a mix of all 3 and some more.

~~~
zzzcpan
It's more like a mix of solar and wind energy investors with fossil burning
energy investors, both benefit from shutting down nuclear reactors. Solar and
wind investors just want to have their huge returns with nothing wasted, as
each kWh is pretty expensive, but lacking nuclear power most of the energy
generation will still go to burning fossils, who will profit massively from
it. Happened in other countries too, like Ukraine, which was recently forced
to temporary stop some reactors to benefit those two groups and of course make
things worse for the climate.

------
guerby
Omitted in the article: the reason why a gas plant (and not coal as written in
the article) is picking up the load is because the french nuclear industry is
years behind schedule for putting online the Flamanville EPR.

The original political deal was putting online the EPR then closing
Fessenheim, partly to avoid going over the legal limit for nuclear power
capacity set by "PPE" law in France.

According to wikipedia [1] Flamanville EPR construction started in 2007 with
budget of 3.3 billions EUR and completion date of 2012.

Current estimates are 19.1 billions EUR and end of 2022 for completion.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant)

~~~
dkural
All the more reason not to close a perfectly fine nuclear plant.

------
zackmorris
I just want to point out that the headline is incorrect - there is no such
thing as safe nuclear power currently. When you factor in micromorts from fuel
mining and waste storage, you get a relatively low number of deaths compared
to coal. But I wouldn't call nuclear power "safe". The worst part is that
those deaths are delayed by years and even generations, so we feel an
artificial sense of security because we aren't likely to hit those problems in
our lifetime.

Yes there are some promising reactors that produce less waste, and breeder
reactors that can burn waste. But those are mired in political problems
unrelated to the tech itself. I think that the crux of the issue is that human
fallibility approaches 100% on decades-long timescales, so some reactor
somewhere will be melting down roughly every decade from this point forward.
Personally that level of risk just isn't acceptable to me. That's why I'm
against the construction of new reactors.

All that said, I would not have voted to retire this reactor at this time. I
also find it sad that little or none of the cost of operating it will make its
way to renewable energy. So even in progressive France, noble goals like
sustainable non-polluting energy generation continue to face artificial
hurdles created by attempts at shortsighted political gain.

~~~
perl4ever
>the crux of the issue is that human fallibility approaches 100% on decades-
long timescales

Pessimistically, I suppose.

But I don't understand how someone can take this position and simultaneously
feel like climate change has any hope whatsoever of being addressed.

------
temac
It is well known: it is a "political" deal between two party: the PS, that
ruled between 2012 and 2017, and IIRC EELV, a "green" political party, one of
the kind that do not like nuclear. The "green" party even wanted to completely
dismantle the mox industry, but the PS eventually told them niet.

Then it has not been reversed by the current ruling party.

------
open-source-ux
Related: All of Europe’s existing and planned coal power plants:

[https://beyond-coal.eu/coal-exit-tracker/](https://beyond-coal.eu/coal-exit-
tracker/)

France has one of the lowest number of coal plants compared to other European
countries. The links on the left of the page let you filter the map into
different data sets.

------
hamilyon2
Please don't forget increased reliance on natural gas from Russia.

Uranium is so abundant, it does not give anyone any power in negotiations. But
fossil fuel has to be imported. Natural gas, for example, flows only through
pipes.

~~~
Kuinox
Sadly there is no uranium in France.

~~~
qayxc
That's a false statement.

There's enough uranium in France - it's just not _cheap_ uranium and open pit
mines in Africa are more economical.

Additionally, France never had to even prospect for uranium ore, as
incidentally many of their former colonies had plenty of potential for cheap
open pit mining using cheap local workers....

For reference, just a few hundred kilometres east of their border, East
Germany was the third largest uranium producer in the world and there's no
geological reason why France should be devoid of it.

~~~
Kuinox
Yes, sorry, that not commercialy viable to get this uranium.

> Additionally, France never had to even prospect for uranium ore

But this is false. (There is no english link sorry for that).
[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UraMin](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UraMin)

~~~
qayxc
> But this is false. (There is no english link sorry for that).
> [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UraMin](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UraMin)

Context! They never had to prospect _in France_ \- I thought hat was clear,
but apparently it wasn't. Sorry for the confusion.

Edit: after reading the article I'm more confused - that's not even a French
company - it's Canadian...

~~~
Kuinox
Oh, didn't understood you this way.

This Canadian company got bought by Areva.

------
bullen
Sweden just paid 300 million SEK to reboot one reactor (also pressurized water
reactor from Westinghouse manufactured in the early 70s and started in 75; 3
years before this one, closed in Dec. last year) because of supply issues in
the south of Sweden leading to price volatility and provisioning issues this
summer during the heatwave.

Peak-oil is a bitch and we're going to run these nuclear plants until the
metal in the cores and foundations start to show cracks visible to the naked
eye.

Because Uranium has 1.000.000x the power content per weight more than gasoline
and 1.000.000.000x more than batteries!

That said fission costs a lot of dead trees to build, so we're going to have
to stick to the plants we already have.

Building new nuclear plants will not be possible no matter how much money you
print.

I predict the french will do the same once the KWh price jumps around a little
too much to be ignored.

Electric cars are a joke, they take hours to charge and once everyone has
them; charging will be impossible!

Instead we should focus on Raspberry Pi 4 and electric bikes!

Edit: If you look here you'll see that most WH plants put into service ~75
have been closed:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors)

The only other interesting tidbit here is that Saudi-Arabia is planning 4
reactors!

------
gourmetennui
So in order to please the environmental agenda of the Green party they are
shutting down a nuclear plant and switching to fossil fuels.

------
cjblomqvist
This article sounds too bad to be true in my ears. For example, Germany is
shutting down their coal plants gradually until 2038 (why would they then
commission one this year, as stated by the article?). I agree it sounds stupid
to shut it down prematurely, and I agree the green movement (at least here in
Sweden, and apparently also in France) is many times doing stupid things that
actually harm the environment, but this article does not seem to aim to
portray the full situation as objectively as possible.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/world/europe/la...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-
fg-germany-coal-power-20190126-story.html%3f_amp=true)

~~~
morsch
> why would they then commission one this year, as stated by the article

Unfortunately, that really happened[1]. Commission as in started running, not
as in started constructing, which they did in 2007. The usual argument is that
a modern coal power plant replaces older ones and more efficient/less
polluting. Obviously, it's all very controversial.

[1] [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-activists-protest-germanys-
new...](https://www.dw.com/en/climate-activists-protest-germanys-new-
datteln-4-coal-power-plant/a-53632887)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> The usual argument is that a modern coal power plant replaces older ones and
> more efficient/less polluting.

Which is, of course, bullocks even if it's true, because the alternative
exists to shut down the older coal fired power plants and replace them with
something that isn't coal at all. Like nuclear, or solar. Even natural gas
would be better than coal.

------
vladletter
They don't talk about nuclear waste highly toxic that is buried in the north
east of France and that they don't know what to do with. Nuclear is good for
environment temporarily, but on the long term, if we don't know how to reuse
nuclear waste, it will be worse.

~~~
Kuinox
Would be cool if you sourced your statements like the article did. Like "we
don't know what to do with it" which is a lie.

~~~
bohadi
As someone in another field, well what do we do with nuclear waste?

My guess is bury it somewhere else.

~~~
Kuinox
Currently it's stored in nuclear waste bin, in pools in a few hangar. There is
plan to store the in a geological stable hole, that we known that it won't
move for a long time.

> The Nuclear Safety Authority has confirmed that the rock has not moved for
> several million years.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse/Haute_Marne_Underground_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse/Haute_Marne_Underground_Research_Laboratory)

Also, I'm not in the field, i just like to inform myself before having an
opinon. Too many times there is lies spread about nuclear facilities.

------
lucioperca
Ohh come on nuclear power is not for sure that low carbon if you consider the
whole life cycle: [https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-
nuclear-...](https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-
power-not-low-carbon)
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332)

New power plants which statisfies western standards like UK Hinkley are a cost
nightmare. Further it essentially funds new nuclear weapons:
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2017/oct/12/electricity-...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2017/oct/12/electricity-consumers-to-fund-nuclear-weapons-through-
hinkley-point-c)

Sure there is some slim chance that old western or new Chernobyl style
reactors would offer dead cheap ecological energy eventually (moving all
complementary processes like getting the ore or building holes to dump the
radioactive waste to electric). Also this offers the chance to create a huge
wild life refugee in even more central Europe eventually (sure why should we
care about people losing their homeland): [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2017/oct/12/electricity-...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2017/oct/12/electricity-consumers-to-fund-nuclear-weapons-through-
hinkley-point-c)

------
indysigners
What most HN-“experts“ and the author of the article forget is: Fessenheim 2
has had so many interruptions and incidents because the whole technology being
50 years old, you lost count on how many incidents there have been. Think of
you running a 50 y/o computer at home.

I live nearby the plant (within its 30km radius) and we had reports on
Fessenheim incidents every other week or so.

>The answer to why Fessenheim is closing is sadly one of politics.

This is some outright BS from the author here. Fessenheim is built next to the
Rhein-river but below its own water-level. If the dam would breach because of
an earthquake or flood, the whole nuclear plant would be under water. Does
Fukushima ring a bell, what happened there? Exactly that!

Several examinations also found the inbounds of Fessenheim to be poorly
protected from flood. They even have their own security measures and fallback
circuits not properly secured against flooding. Only a water leakage would
cause some serious issues not to mention a dam breach.

So with the combo of old tech, often interrupted uptime and shitty protection
against floo, there are simply too many good reasons to close down the whole
thing.

------
baq
answer: short term political gain

~~~
cptskippy
Why is sensible behavior suddenly political?

The owner/operator of the facility, EDF, envisaged a 40 year life for all 2nd
generation reactors. That would have meant the reactor would have been shut
down 2 years ago.

It's in a flood zone and a 2011 commission found that it didn't have necessary
redundant cooling in place should the canals around it fail.

It's in a seismically active area.

It's on a river over an aquifer so any leakage will have severe consequences.

It has to be shut down during heat waves because the excess heat it dumps into
the neighboring river will kill wildlife.

In the last decade it has had a number of small incidents.

It has served it's purpose for longer than it's expected lifespan and it's
being shutdown safely before a catastrophe happens.

The SOP of Capitalism to do it until something bad happens doesn't mesh with
Nuclear power.

~~~
Kuinox
As stated in the article, the 40 year lifespan is a lie from 'les verts'. The
facility was built for 40 year with minimal maintenance. This is not the
lifespan if the facility was well maintained.

~~~
guerby
Maintenance for nuclear in France is not "minimal": for the past two years
(2018 2019) capacity factor of nuclear power in France has been around 70%
mainly due to maintenance according to RTE (1)

For reference best UK offshore wind farm had 55.3% capacity factor in 2019 and
UK offshore wind average capacity factor was 40.6% in 2019 (2)

(1) [https://media.rte-france.com/bilan-electrique-2019-2/](https://media.rte-
france.com/bilan-electrique-2019-2/) 379.5 Twh produced, 63.1 GW installed,
68.7% capacity factor

(2) [https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-
factors](https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors)

~~~
Kuinox
Yes, that the point, the maintenant is not minimal, the facility could run
more than 40 years if it was minimal maintenance.

------
IAmEveryone
I can't find much information about the "Sustainability Times". But I'm
somewhat certain it's a lobbying effort by the French nuclear industry.

Almost every article seems to come around to saying "and nuclear power would
be great", even when it starts with some solar power invention.

~~~
orwin
Actually, in the "contributor" pages, you can see there is several physisit or
doctor working with nuclear, and people from
[https://www.sfen.org/](https://www.sfen.org/)

But you can also see that this is not just that, there is also scientifics who
work on responsible sourcing of rare earth, sustainable agricultural tech.
This is probably once agian a science-based newspaper that will never work.
I've learn that if you want people to care about climate change, just don't
talk about nuclear energy

------
LargoLasskhyfv
Früher war mehr Lametta! Also known as "Wir bauen uns ein Atomkraftwerk!"

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpEYKv6mGNI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpEYKv6mGNI)

------
lavignegagnon
Conspiracy Theory: I can't help but wonder if these two stories are related?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23662241](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23662241)

Could Fessenheim 2 be leaking nuclear particles?

------
Ekaros
It so sad that we didn't wake up early to replacing these ageing plants. So
now we can't be in situation where we would have modern plants coming up as we
phase out the oldest plants. Which would have been the sensible thing to do.

------
oxfordmale
There is a pro nuclear power lobby that loves to trivialise toxic radio active
waste. They argue that storing it in caves with clear warning signs will deter
future generations from accidentally messing about with its content. They
forgot historical context can be quickly lost over a few thousand years and
assume there will not be a technological dark age in the future. CO2 might
well introduce long term damage to the climate, but it is not immediately
toxic.

~~~
7786655
Why should we worry about the tiny possibility that a few people in the future
will die in the unlikely event that society regresses so much that we forget
how to build a Geiger counter when air pollution caused by burning coal is
killing tens of millions of people a year right now?

~~~
oxfordmale
It might well be some teenage boys finding bright yellow coloured barrels with
interesting symbols in a cave. Which teenage boy can read warnings written in
Egyptian hieroglyphs?

That doesn't justify burning coal, however, there are many renewable energy
sources that do not produce pollution or toxic waste that is hazardous for ten
thousand years.

~~~
roenxi
> there are many renewable energy sources that do not produce pollution or
> toxic waste that is hazardous for ten thousand years.

That isn't true, most renewable energy sources, eg, solar panels [0], produce
waste that will be toxic waste that will be hazardous for tens of thousands of
years. Lead and cadmium don't even decay in practical terms, even after 10s of
thousands of years.

Maybe for hydro what you say is true.

[0] [https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-
waste...](https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste-
problem/)

