Dearest Foxy,

As the article points out, these shut-downs are because of "revelations [that] emerge about the supply of sub-standard parts" and too much carbon in the steel supplied, corruption, etc. All easily correctable, so this is not really evidence of something fundamentally wrong with nuclear power per se. It pays to read articles that one puts up :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I always read the links that I put up.
However, this does not negate the fact that
there are problems associated with nuclear
power reactors and obviously in France
the problems were not "easily correctible,"
as 20 of them were shut down. You also should
Google the Reuters article that I mentioned earlier.
For your information.

Foxy,

I did google your link, and wish that you would occasionally quote sites not published by anti nuke activists. I found lots of other information from other sites.

There was not a problem with the reactors, but a scare about a potential problem that in reality did not exist and is testament to the super high standards that the nuclear industry is held to that no others are.

"France is set to have its usual nuclear power capacity almost completely restored by mid-January, after a number of plants come back online following inspections.

Only 4 out of 58 nuclear power plants will be offline by the middle of next month, and power prices have fallen sharply, as worries about shortages eased.Gravelines nuclear power plant

EDF confirmed on Monday that seven nuclear reactors shut down for safety checks would be up and running again by the end of December and there would be no problem with power supplies this winter."

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2016/12/french-nuclear-capacity-almost-restored.html

Most reactors have been inspected and passed with flying colors.

Paul,

The problems that the "conservatives" on this site have is not per se with renewables, but rather with the greenie activists that have their heads in the sand ignoring the network experts and pretending that there are no problems with the reliability and cost of renewables, and wildly over inflating the risks involved with nuclear power.

Decisions to close down power generation plants are not taken lightly, as they are complex procedures, as is the start up process. I worked for many years in heavy industry involving 300 ton furnaces, and from experience 'run out' was a difficult operation. 'Start up' was worse, even more difficult and dangerous, in 20 years we lost one furnace during start up, don't want to be too close to all that refractory material and 'batch' at 1000 degrees when it decides to come crashing down. Power generation would have similar problems.

Foxy's French report is factual and it's serious, not to be taken lightly. Whenever man involves himself in, particularly this type of difficult endeavor, there are risks, both foreseen and unforeseen. Most catastrophic accidents start off as a minor problem, which through procedural error, or complacency gets out of hand.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for that.

This is a debate that needs to be had.
Listing the pros and cons of both renewables and nuclear
is important. As is broadening the discussion.

http://www.reneweconomy.com.au/renewable-energy-versus-nuclear-dispelling-the-myths-48635/

Foxy, I keep asking this question but never get an answer.
If nuclear cannot be used what do you suggest that we use ?