Hacker News Reader

Comment by eric-burel | Hacker News Reader

Look for the Tricastin plant I don't know enough to answer precisely but it has leaked recently and a few years ago. Of course it doesn't leak uranium, but other byproducts, which not a sign of a well managed plant. Some were stopped not just maintenance but the discovery of micro-breaches caused by maintenance decades ago. That's actually a sign of proper management, but a counter-argument to reliability.

View on HN

Yep, a 1980 PWR... sounds about right.

Modern reactor designs are so much better. They are also basically nonexistent because everyone stopped building reactors :(

Even the old PWRs can be operationally unproblematic if you do it right. The German Pre-Konvoi and Konvoi fleet had pretty good stats. I'm not sure if Grohnde (shut down in 2021) is still the NPP block with the highest total production (500 TWhr) or if another block managed to lap it. Overall capacity factor of these was around 90 %. The US fleet is similar iirc.

The French fleet has been running around 65-70 % CF for years, pretty bad, but clearly not root caused by the tech branch.

- "one of the plant regularly leaks radioactive material"

- "Look for the Tricastin plant I don't know enough to answer precisely but it has leaked recently and a few years ago. Of course it doesn't leak uranium"

So, your original statement was an untruth. Or "alternative facts"

> of micro-breaches caused by maintenance decades ago. That's actually a sign of proper management, but a counter-argument to reliability.

So you mean microbreaches were made decades ago, the plant has operated for decades with no issues, and you call that unreliable?

This thread is a great example of how the meanings of words can be taken differently by different people. "Unreliable" is less of a description and more of a flag. Either it is or isn't. But the original commenter's threshold for unreliable = true is much much lower than most people's as illuminated in this discussion.

It seems like this is a daily occurrence online and in person.

I'm guessing "micro breaches" refers to hydrogen-induced cracks. Media likes to talk about it in bigly, threatening terms such as "THOUSANDS OF CRACKS FOUND IN REACTOR VESSEL" - of course anyone with half a brain starts to wonder "aren't these PWRs?". Much like people like to write headlines such as "HUNDREDS OF NUCLEAR INCIDENTS AT NPP XYZ", where "nuclear incident" means "reported event", which includes such dramatic incidents as "a backup valve in some secondary circuit had to be replaced because it was stuck" or "a bird flew into the transformer, tripping protection and taking a block offline".

Reminds me of the hysteria surrounding microplastics. I saw an article that once that said there are X many thousands of microplastic particles in a cubic meter of seawater at certain locations. They were actually counting individual particles! Why? because expressing plastics as a % of total mass or volume makes it so negligible as to not be a headline.

That's like reading headlines about TESLA RECALLS every time they do an OTA update that fixes a minor compliance issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com