| > with the president of the EDF at the time Marcel Boiteux, who said that this will happen, but it's not a big deal because it will happen after the plants had reached their EOL in 30 years. That's not what he said. He said this is the scenario in case of full cycle up and down every day. Which is obviously not how a central is operated. Consensus today is that nuclear powerplant can live for around 60-80y without issues if the maintenance is done properly.
The US park is getting there. > This simply wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been necessary, the government wouldn't have allowed it at the time. The government has no word to say over an ASN decision, specially when Nuclear safety is at stake. It is France we are talking about, not the USSR. Again, it is commonly admitted today, after the facts, that it was over-reacting. Thats said: It is bad economically as it cost EDF few billions. But it is exactly what you want to see for safety: Better overreacting than having an incident. > A few years pass again and some people are talking themselves again into this technology being anything except useless. So. You are taking one single year failure as a representative example of a technology that has given cheap, abundant and low carbon electricity for the entire Europeean continent for 3 decades ? Do you have not the impression of being of slightly bad faith here ? |
It's France, not USSR. Is this why the EDF was involved in rescuing Areva from bankruptcy -- a sound business decision? Is this why the government is giving basically interest free loans to the EDF that will be repaid starting from maybe in 15 years? If you really believe that you are delusional. It's all just backroom wheeling and dealing. There is a good saying "don't get high on your own supply". The delusion of order in the western world will be its end, especially now considering it's crumbling before our eyes. Clinging to this idea is not healthy.
Abundant and low carbon, all nice things, but it's not why they were built. They were built for energy independence, and at this task it failed at the exact point in time when it was supposed to shine. Speaking of which, being built for one purpose doesn't necessarily make it useful for another purpose. It was built at a time when things like carbon emissions, climate change and overall sustainability were not a topic. Since sustainability is a topic today, it requires obviously different considerations. My only gripe with the German shutdown is that they didn't force the operators to pay for the decommissioning and waste disposal in full. That would've ended any debate about how realistic and useful this technology is because the companies would've been insolvent.