Nuclear cogeneration

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
User avatar
loop
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 816
Registration: 03/10/07, 06:33
Location: Picardie




by loop » 06/02/08, 06:39

Hello

Regarding photovoltaics, mistrust! :?

The ecological interest remains to be demonstrated and moreover, if we have to achieve its massive production, hello the damage in terms of CO2. Because I imagine that this sector uses 0% renewable! : Evil:

I nevertheless recognize that photovoltaics is a form of energy storage since it produces almost continuously under good conditions
The promotion of photovoltaics should be based on this asset, but alas, gray energy is not taken into account to put the ecological balance over life

Let's be dreamy, wouldn't the ideal be a production from wind power, the ovens working in case of overproduction? The silicon would be "removable" from its support and would be doped again to become usable again.
But there I think that the industrial and financial interest would be called into question because our economy only works if we throw everything in the trash having released a maximum of fossil CO2 : Evil:

A+
0 x
denis
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 944
Registration: 15/12/05, 17:26
Location: rhone alps
x 2




by denis » 06/02/08, 10:40

"it's wrong !!

AREVA claims that each time it sells a power plant in the world it puts the amount equivalent to its derangement
in a pot ...
"This one is very good !! and who is it who has the pot? and uses it to buy what? : Lol: I let you imagine !! $
0 x
White would not exist without the dark, but anyway!


http://maison-en-paille.blogspot.fr/
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 06/02/08, 11:23

I knew you would sink in on your own, Remundo.
Also, for you, since you ask me, I give you a layer:

dare to say that a stone mine is the same as a uranium mine?
you keep sinking, Remundo!

a uranium mine contaminates the environment much more seriously than coal, for an indefinite period of time.
take a good look at the cow and the apple on the right: that's what you eat! okay ? and even if it's not you, well it will be your children ... or your grandchildren.
Image
http://www.limousin.drire.gouv.fr/environnement/etatenv2004/mines_uranium.htm

see limousin uranium mine:
http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/uranium_limousin_criirad.html
the scandal ! they prefer to do that in Niger, the standards are not the same ...

We can NOT compare oil and uranium on CO2, that's demago!

it's like storage: do you want me to get you out of the sources for storage, barrel and storage pool leaks? just see the last earthquake in Japan that made barrels flee ... in nature.
is that what you call mastering storage?

if you still believe in nuclear research to improve the process ... don't you think it would have been done a long time ago?
and then if the researchers look like pierre and marie currie, I understand that there are not many : roll: don't play with fire ...

for your information, the FAP filters the diesel particles (even if it is a scam to sell a chemical of + http://www.nrjrealiste.fr/doc/EGR_FAP.htm) and the pantone as you wrote yourself, allows a depollution, this is what counts if you have not always understood. for performance, you did not quote those made on a diesel engine ...

So you do not deny that nuclear energy uses thermal power plants, which produce CO2, but you say ultra-negligible I would like to know: how much compared to how much / source?

what the water columns of the 60 power stations in France weigh: these are greenhouse gas sinks that operate continuously and release excess moisture. as previously said, the heated water is irradiated by radiation, as is the evaporated water which contaminates the ambient air.
you always say that it is negligible, but that + that + that etc ... = it is more negligible at all!
moreover negligible ... what is the interval of uncertainty exactly, before being able to judge that it is negligible?

You say that the CO2 cost of uranium is very good, but I remind you that we cannot compare uranium compared to its CO2: it is playing the game of the lobby, and I believe that you are clearly stated so far ... should I remind you again that with the transport and the cable losses the transport of the 220 is poor, the yield below 20% if not 10%? would that ruin your CO2 yield, right? -)

directly applicable alternatives to nuclear: thermal solar panels: avoid chilling cold water with 2500W nuclear electric resistances sold by the edf areva lobby: radiators, water heaters, dishwashers, washing machines, etc. wind.
the opening of the markets has made it possible for ENERCOOP to be born, a supplier of green electricity.

do you know ENRCOOP remundo? http://www.enercoop.fr/

remundo wrote:the metal Uranium is a harmless metal unless it is sucked up by humans in the form of an aerosol (what happened in Iraq in the Gulf War). At this time, the few U235 that it contains radiate in the lungs and cause tumors (and possible leukemia because blood passes a lot in the lungs ...)


Again: stop saying uranium is harmless! otherwise will live next to the mines of niger, operated by areva! no ? you want info on it? why do you think that in France they stopped the extraction mines? because it's shameful and we don't want to see that in France, edf (sorry areva) prefers to relocate!
there is not only the syndrome of the war of the gulf (to seek in "collection of reindeer" old soldiers sick to die of it, but also that of the balkans, and soon that of lebanon ... vast experimentation for the army, and for edf the opportunity to get rid of its electrical consumption stocks! thank you for this environmental act ... great technology!
"the few" u235s are a billion times more fatal than anything else.
this passes directly into the blood, causes leukemias but also genetic mutations that can be transmitted from generation to generation! long live the deformed ... you will tell me, as long as nobody knows, and that there is no geographical map made! we are only in 2008 after all! the collaboration is perfect ...........

as for the 2 types of uranium datome, it was not me who mentioned them, and as proof: you forgot to talk about the U236 ...

viable solutions: solar, wind, etc. these are FREE NRJs because they are free and cannot be sold by an industrialist.

concerning the badge of the so-called "cynical disinformers from EDF", here is scientific info for you, who should have been alerted by this info if you had been critical in your reasoning:
"
The exit of radionuclides through contaminated equipment or clothing without the operators' knowledge is controlled by gantries located at the outlet of the plant. The detection threshold is 50000 Bq for the gates controlling the equipment and 3000 Bq for those controlling the pedestrians. 46 cases of clothing contamination were identified in 2000. However, it should be remembered that these gantries are especially effective in detecting gamma emitters such as cobalt 60. They are much less so for less energetic gamma emitters and especially for emitters beta. Much larger contaminations could therefore be overlooked and occasionally expose a few individuals in the population to non-negligible doses, even unacceptable from a regulatory point of view.
"
source: http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/comprendre/dossiers/doc/t/technologie/r/aquitaine/d/les-rejets-de-la-centrale-nucleaire-du-blayais-a-la-loupe_201/c3/221/p4/

you know what ? you are naive.

remundo wrote:You store it or you bury it 200 km deep ... But of course from this point of view, it's boring ... I never said the opposite, but it is better than fossil oil. Great stubborn!

you should rather say: "from my point of view, I think that". if not, go discuss it with those who live near Bure where they are required to store waste in depth ... a great mentality to hide and bury your waste! we can clearly see all the technology in all its splendor ... http://burestop.free.fr/

for WWTPs: I did not know, but it seems really DIY as a method of responding to demand ... while it is impossible to store the 220V, edf overbills peak consumption ... while it does will be + and +, we are + and + "gogos" as remundo calls us, coming home from work to turn on the TV ... all that for tf1 must be laughing ...

for public lighting: you recognize a scandal of +, if you want I can list all the points on which you have agreed with me ;-) it looks like the scales are tipping!

to say that the French kwH is the cheapest in Europe "thanks to nuclear power" you're wrong, that's a conclusion, not a demonstration, on what argument? Don't you know that the price of uranium is going up and you've been going up again? because it is as much fossil as oil and therefore does not constitute a step forward!

all that to say "it's a fact", it's a bit easy simplistic and fatalistic I think ... it's easy to make it more expensive, isn't it? so that would give more space to renewable NRJs no?

concerning your link on the 1% of fossil among the nuclear, your source is indeed "wikipédia", is that your sources of scientist? you didn't see that it said "This article is a draft about energy." at the top of the page?
you see you look too much at the books you do not believe enough your instinct "in my opinion".

to play the international game of wanting to manage the confilts between india and pakistant, by listening only to tf1, it is to play the game of Bush which made the wars in Iraq while making believe in everyone as pretext, which was revealed in the end that there were weapons of mass destruction ... this allowed him to dump all his stock of depleted uranium in the process, far from home (well, not his soldiers who must shoot the face but secret defense obliges thank you to the good patriots no I do not want to make war for a piece of land).

Again radioactivity is not chocolate, you CANNOT compare it to smoke or CO2! nein! NOT COMPARABLE! a so-called scientist like you should make that simple difference, though.

Photovoltaic solar energy in a desert or marine environment, with high voltage cable to transport energy. Solar energy represents 10 times human needs.

electric lobbyist propaganda!
what is the performance of these panels? 10%? and I'm not even talking about the long-term investment of the individual, hypothetical ...
you should know that EDF and TOTAL create TENESOL in Europe to resell their electricity ... by cables, ie large pylons once again.

still hold a black spot for nuclear: dismantling ... curious technique right? So every 20 years you have to break everything and rebuild everything, but it must appeal to manufacturers, right? and if not, how much does it cost? it is re-included in the price of electricity I imagine? the more you install it, the more you dismantle it, and after that the site becomes contaminated? How's it going ?
how dare you believe that it is necessary to dismantle hydraulic, photovoltaic, thermal power plants?

for nuclear power we speak of concrete which is no longer safe for the forces to contain! yes, you shouldn't believe that the concrete would always be done as well, it cracks and causes LEAKS Remundo! and after all this IRRADIATED concrete, where do you put it? UNDER or ON the roads? are you making concrete again? ah no you bury it! well it must make big holes then right? and who deposits them at the bottom? well, a problem causing other problem, the myth of the chain reaction seen by the nuclear what ... come on I stop ...
Oh no, you say "a big, deep hole with vitrified barrels, all sunk in reinforced concrete miles deep." : I see, that's a scientist, and especially RESPONSIBLE .... bouhouhou he understands nothing ...
dare to say that a stone mine is the same as a uranium mine?
you keep sinking, Remundo!

a uranium mine contaminates the environment much more seriously than coal, for an indefinite period of time.
Image
http://www.limousin.drire.gouv.fr/environnement/etatenv2004/mines_uranium.htm

see limousin uranium mine:
http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/uranium_limousin_criirad.html
the scandal ! they prefer to do that in Niger, the standards are not the same ...

We can NOT compare oil and uranium on CO2, that's demago!

it's like storage: do you want me to get you out of the sources for storage, barrel and storage pool leaks? just see the last earthquake in Japan that made barrels flee ... in nature.
is that what you call mastering storage?

if you still believe in nuclear research to improve the process ... don't you think it would have been done a long time ago?
and then if the researchers look like pierre and marie currie, I understand that there are not many : roll: don't play with fire ...

for your information, the FAP filters the diesel particles (even if it is a scam to sell a chemical of + http://www.nrjrealiste.fr/doc/EGR_FAP.htm) and the pantone as you wrote yourself, allows a depollution, this is what counts if you have not always understood. for performance, you did not quote those made on a diesel engine ...

So you do not deny that nuclear energy uses thermal power plants, which produce CO2, but you say ultra-negligible I would like to know: how much compared to how much / source?

what the water columns of the 60 power stations in France weigh: these are greenhouse gas sinks that operate continuously and release excess moisture. as previously said, the heated water is irradiated by radiation, as is the evaporated water which contaminates the ambient air.
you always say that it is negligible, but that + that + that etc ... = it is more negligible at all!
moreover negligible ... what is the interval of uncertainty exactly, before being able to judge that it is negligible?

You say that the CO2 cost of uranium is very good, but I remind you that we cannot compare uranium compared to its CO2: it is playing the game of the lobby, and I believe that you are clearly stated so far ... should I remind you again that with the transport and the cable losses the transport of the 220 is poor, the yield below 20% if not 10%? would that ruin your CO2 yield, right? -)

directly applicable alternatives to nuclear: thermal solar panels: avoid chilling cold water with 2500W nuclear electric resistances sold by the edf areva lobby: radiators, water heaters, dishwashers, washing machines, etc. wind.
the opening of the markets has made it possible for ENERCOOP to be born, a supplier of green electricity.

do you know ENRCOOP remundo? http://www.enercoop.fr/

remundo wrote:the metal Uranium is a harmless metal unless it is sucked up by humans in the form of an aerosol (what happened in Iraq in the Gulf War). At this time, the few U235 that it contains radiate in the lungs and cause tumors (and possible leukemia because blood passes a lot in the lungs ...)


Again: stop saying uranium is harmless! otherwise will live next to the mines of niger, operated by areva! no ? you want info on it? why do you think that in France they stopped the extraction mines? because it's shameful and we don't want to see that in France, edf (sorry areva) prefers to relocate!
there is not only the syndrome of the war of the gulf (to seek in "collection of reindeer" old soldiers sick to die of it, but also that of the balkans, and soon that of lebanon ... vast experimentation for the army, and for edf the opportunity to get rid of its electrical consumption stocks! thank you for this environmental act ... great technology!
"the few" u235s are a billion times more fatal than anything else.
this passes directly into the blood, causes leukemias but also genetic mutations that can be transmitted from generation to generation! long live the deformed ... you will tell me, as long as nobody knows, and that there is no geographical map made! we are only in 2008 after all! the collaboration is perfect ...........

as for the 2 types of uranium datome, it was not me who mentioned them, and as proof: you forgot to talk about the U236 ...

viable solutions: solar, wind, etc. these are FREE NRJs because they are free and cannot be sold by an industrialist.

concerning the badge of the so-called "cynical disinformers from EDF", here is scientific info for you, who should have been alerted by this info if you had been critical in your reasoning:
"
The exit of radionuclides through contaminated equipment or clothing without the operators' knowledge is controlled by gantries located at the outlet of the plant. The detection threshold is 50000 Bq for the gates controlling the equipment and 3000 Bq for those controlling the pedestrians. 46 cases of clothing contamination were identified in 2000. However, it should be remembered that these gantries are especially effective in detecting gamma emitters such as cobalt 60. They are much less so for less energetic gamma emitters and especially for emitters beta. Much larger contaminations could therefore be overlooked and occasionally expose a few individuals in the population to non-negligible doses, even unacceptable from a regulatory point of view.
"
source: http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/comprendre/dossiers/doc/t/technologie/r/aquitaine/d/les-rejets-de-la-centrale-nucleaire-du-blayais-a-la-loupe_201/c3/221/p4/

you know what ? you are naive.

remundo wrote:You store it or you bury it 200 km deep ... But of course from this point of view, it's boring ... I never said the opposite, but it is better than fossil oil. Great stubborn!

you should rather say: "from my point of view, I think that". if not, go discuss it with those who live near Bure where they are required to store waste in depth ... a great mentality to hide and bury your waste! we can clearly see all the technology in all its splendor ... http://burestop.free.fr/

for WWTPs: I did not know, but it seems really DIY as a method of responding to demand ... while it is impossible to store the 220V, edf overbills peak consumption ... while it does will be + and +, we are + and + "gogos" as remundo calls us, coming home from work to turn on the TV ... all that for tf1 must be laughing ...

for public lighting: you recognize a scandal of +, if you want I can list all the points on which you have agreed with me ;-) it looks like the scales are tipping!

to say that the French kwH is the cheapest in Europe "thanks to nuclear power" you're wrong, that's a conclusion, not a demonstration, on what argument? Don't you know that the price of uranium is going up and you've been going up again? because it is as much fossil as oil and therefore does not constitute a step forward!

all that to say "it's a fact", it's a bit easy simplistic and fatalistic I think ... it's easy to make it more expensive, isn't it? so that would give more space to renewable NRJs no?

concerning your link on the 1% of fossil among the nuclear, your source is indeed "wikipédia", is that your sources of scientist? you didn't see that it said "This article is a draft about energy." at the top of the page?
you see you look too much at the books you do not believe enough your instinct "in my opinion".

to play the international game of wanting to manage the confilts between india and pakistant, by listening only to tf1, it is to play the game of Bush which made the wars in Iraq while making believe in everyone as pretext, which was revealed in the end that there were weapons of mass destruction ... this allowed him to dump all his stock of depleted uranium in the process, far from home (well, not his soldiers who must shoot the face but secret defense obliges thank you to the good patriots no I do not want to make war for a piece of land).

Again radioactivity is not chocolate, you CANNOT compare it to smoke or CO2! nein! NOT COMPARABLE! a so-called scientist like you should make that simple difference, though.

Photovoltaic solar energy in a desert or marine environment, with high voltage cable to transport energy. Solar energy represents 10 times human needs.

electric lobbyist propaganda!
what is the performance of these panels? 10%? and I'm not even talking about the long-term investment of the individual, hypothetical ...
you should know that EDF and TOTAL create TENESOL in Europe to resell their electricity ... by cables, ie large pylons once again.

still hold a black spot for nuclear: dismantling ... curious technique right? So every 20 years you have to break everything and rebuild everything, but it must appeal to manufacturers, right? and if not, how much does it cost? it is re-included in the price of electricity I imagine? the more you install it, the more you dismantle it, and after that the site becomes contaminated? How's it going ?
how dare you believe that it is necessary to dismantle hydraulic, photovoltaic, thermal power plants?

for nuclear power we speak of concrete which is no longer safe for the forces to contain! yes, you shouldn't believe that the concrete would always be done as well, it cracks and causes LEAKS Remundo! and after all this IRRADIATED concrete, where do you put it? UNDER or ON the roads? are you making concrete again? ah no you bury it! well it must make big holes then right? and who deposits them at the bottom? well, a problem causing other problem, the myth of the chain reaction seen by the nuclear what ... come on I stop ...
Oh no, you say "a big, deep hole with vitrified barrels, all sunk in reinforced concrete miles deep." : I see, that's a scientist, and especially RESPONSIBLE .... bouhouhou he understands nothing ...

"For 50 years, nobody cared about recycling industrial products." : FALSE

loop wrote:I do not believe at all in the absence of contamination between the different circuits, primary, secondary and cooling towers
There is certainly no physical contact between them, but the radiation can very well activate a radioactivity absent in the natural state in the water used, but this is only a personal hypothesis

unfortunately it is very real and "physical" to use this heme dear to the nuclear lobby.

I would have only one word for the end:
Image
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 06/02/08, 14:21

Hi Tagor,

Totally agree with you. Areva / EDF are putting money aside to pre-finance the dismantling. It remains to be seen whether this is sufficient. It's like the "eco-tax" but the scale of 1GW power plants ...

And all the installations are in this case, even the hydraulics. It's not free to blow up a dam or dig up penstocks ...

For the costs accurate, very clever whoever can answer ...

For photovoltaics, emblematic of this problem, we do not always assess the cost of recycling panels at the end of their life. I think I saw topics on this forums who approached him.

@+
0 x
Image
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 06/02/08, 14:26

Ah well it's not bad animated here say vouare :)
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 06/02/08, 15:02

Look Jonule ...

You've laid a novel for me again : Cheesy:

You really have time, me too you will tell me ... But here, I will make it shorter so as not to "sink" because otherwise, I risk finding myself on the other side of the globe : Cheesy:

Fortunately you are rising, with each byte of additional venom against me, higher and higher.

Be careful, you're going to freeze your head on the ceiling : Cheesy:

Apart from bringing out anti-nuclear propaganda, 95% false for 5% true, (and you are in your role), nothing new.
Everyone knows that storage is not a completely safe solution, but safe enough on the scale of 100 years.

You tell me about what we eat ... well I would tell you that if I have cancer, it will be 100 times more likely because of the pesticides and preservatives, or the exhaust gases that I would have ingested than radioactive particles.

I think you're as clogged as the FAP :D . FAP reduces pollution of unburnt particles and catalyzes chemical reactions to reduce NOx. BUT IT DOES NOT FILTER CO2.

You talk to me about Japanese, of course, we can't store anything underground safely in one of the most seismic areas in the world !! In our mountains and plains in France, it has not changed for millions of years.

For the% of balances in consumption peaks, EDF RTE (electrical transmission network) makes very precise estimates of needs and plans 99% of production:
- with hydraulics nuclear power
- with EDF thermal power or independent operator thermal power.

So the remaining 1% is peak production. It is mainly done with natural gas turbines and it costs a maximum of pez ... so EDF does everything to reduce it to heartache ...

For steam water from power plants, it is infinitely less than the natural water vapor from clouds. It goes without saying !!

For electric heating, it's an energy nonsense, you're right. It's not often, but it happens : Cheesy:

On Uranium, if you want to go around all the isotopes, you have a job, there are also U234 and U232 ... I told you about the main ones: the natural mixture 235/238 containing very little 235 where 235 is extracted by enrichment.

"the few" u235s are a billion times more fatal than anything else. "

Oh well then the nigerians should all be dead walking over the ore : Lol: You're right, I'm not going to live in Niger.

"viable solutions: solar, wind, etc. .. these are FREE NRJs because they are free, and cannot be sold by an industrialist."

What nonsense ... you think a guy or even the state will invest 2 Billion Euros in a power plant and deliver the kWh to you. You are going to helmet like everyone else, either with your taxes or with bills :!:

Wouldn't you have watched Alice in Wonderland as a child too much?

For the gogos, I am part of it like everyone else. But even if it means paying dearly for electricity, I don't watch TF1. The 2, the 3 and especially Arte and canal + I like better. :D

And yes Jonule, the scales are tilting on your side, so much that I think she'll break her face on the ground ... because you're really too heavy now.

If I raise my tone a little, it is especially for your arguments on Wikipedia ... I put you in link because it is accessible to you and that what I read on the% corresponds to reality : Evil:

Bush completely jerks off his uranium stock. Oil is his goal. By the way, it was a test of uranium weapons, very successful ... as usual, these weapons are bullshit. We agree for once.

Since you stop, I also stop and definitely. You're totally wrong with me, you spend your time cursing me like a pug.

You are not constructive and you border the wrong time 1 line on 3.


As I do not "understand anything", that I am a "naive scientist", that you boo me "bouhouh", here is what I can tell you:

"Follow your instinct" and good luck to you!
0 x
Image
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 06/02/08, 15:15

Hi Capt_Maloche!

What subject (s) do I let go of? :?: : Cheesy:

For the rest, I give you +10 :P

Except that nuclear is gradually forgotten, it is not Jonule who will say the opposite ...

@+

Capt_Maloche wrote:WOW! Remundo, you loose :D

In any case I do not change my mind, I am pro nuclear today but I am looking with you for alternatives capable of providing the power required at the right time

This is where we realize that we have to find a way to store solar energy

I'm going to the Interclimat show tomorrow, and I'll see if there has been some progress on photovoltaics

I will take pictures :D
0 x
Image
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 06/02/08, 16:29

once again for what we eat, you cannot compare a radioactive element in the body which irradiates it all the time, with preservative pesticides, which one can choose, and exhaust gases, these are NOT THE SAME PARTICLES!
and their dangerousness doesn't compare like that.

I also never said that the DPF filters the CO2, I said that at least for oil they filter the effluents "a minimum" ...

for steam water from power plants, I repeat these are real sinks of greenhouse gases, it is artificial production, not included in the natural cycle of Mother Nature.

for uranium you should not underestimate U236, I can tell you about it + if you want, everything is accessible on the mauritius andré site that I communicated to you.

no Nigerians don't get cancer by walking on the ore, that's to laugh at saying that. environmental pollution: and ultimately for humans, as you know radioactive elements it is for MILLIONS of years ...
http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/niger.html

Yes the state should invest and deliver the free kwh, that would be real public service.
for my part, I build my wind turbine, my solar thermal panels and I banish the electric consos, I have a 3kW meter.

for wikipedia links, nothing to do with the relevance of my links, sorry ...

"bush jerks off its uranium stock": you see, even you, you can't see the reality of what I'm denouncing.

a pity that you do not want to follow, I do not intend to act like a pug with you, but with your arguments. in my opinion you mix a lot of different points that make you do not see how SALE nuclear is.

it will never be ecological.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 06/02/08, 17:44

Speaking of free energy, I finally streamed Meyer's video: free energy video and stanley meyer

: Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy:

If Meyer's speech has lost a little (bcp) of its credibility, the substantive debate and the speakers (most academics) are interesting ...

To see therefore for those who had not yet seen it.

Presentation here: https://www.econologie.com/l-energie-lib ... -2500.html
0 x
bagua
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 10
Registration: 28/10/09, 20:12




by bagua » 28/10/09, 22:00

jonule wrote:the alpha particles are of the order of a nanometer:
during an explosion of a depleted uranium missile, used on the expensive leclerc for example during the nuclear wars (because using nuclear fuel) which took place for the Gulf War, the Balkans, the Lebanese last and how many others ... the cloud of explosion is breathed by those who are near or in the wind, then it passes directly into the lungs, and the blood because too small to be stopped by the lungs.

the particle is then in the blood.

go see the collective of reindeer soldiers who returned from the Gulf War, it's curious they are all sick ... and still you don't see the photos of the children put down by the Iraqi population: heavy metals, this what are uranium, cesium (the main 2 of thernobyl) lead mercury etc ...
Image
related article:
http://www.berry-media.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=153

yes I know it does not happen in France, and uranium mines are prohibited in France because the standards do not accept it, too much scandal for the French who already shit in drinking water ...

fortunately there is apple pectin which makes it possible to eliminate them, but it is still necessary to know it ... like other things it is not to alarm the population but to give them the means to defend themselves! we call these population managers politicians? don't you cloud the border? what a laugh all the same ....

what to do with waste? well it's simple an inventor transformed them into explosive: we therefore eliminate them in the war, quite simply!

it is a reflection of ... our electricity consumption, remundo!
1 kg of enriched uranium gives ... 212 kg of depleted uranium, that's the term to look for on the internet.


what a connection with the power stations: it is the waste, not to see it is absurd ...

maid are you going to say that I'm psychotic, then you want the links and proofs, photos of what I say, or are you able to do it yourself, for us? in all objectivity, I expect that from you, to see where you locate the limit of psychotage : Mrgreen:

what to do with depleted uranium:
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/02/PARSONS/14779

do you call it a clean NRJ? because no CO2, it will last a long time?

tell me ?

I'm not a nuclear pro either. but when i hear that the plants only emit CO2 i wonder!


Hello
it's a bit unusual to answer a post from 2008
but OK
first of all the issue of ammunition has nothing to do with the subject of power plants waste should not necessarily be used in armaments
then when one is a professional anti-nuclear one must use exact terms because depleted uranium is generally used for perforation munitions (caliber> 40 mm) anti-armor for mass concentration and not missiles (projectile guided) term generally used to scare
in addition, the soldiers who occupy an armored vehicle which was the target of an anti-blockade Kelkonke armament (in this case depleted uranium therefore sophisticated armament of a Western country> considerable strike forces) have little chance of survival even whether the shielding withstands the shock due to the physical consequences of this shock
so generally the target will not live long to get cancer
It is also an explosion and not normal civilian use
and anyway we're talking about a war context so people are going to die

the problem that arises here is pa the use of uranium it is simply a question of avoiding wars

Regarding the report posted on page 3 and which talks about the risk of radiation
I think the source (Edmund Lengfelder) is not credible. It is about a person who "collaborates" with a German ecological political party (ödp) and it is really a party made up for the majority of assholes in the true senses of the term which sometimes combines with the right
I personally attended some meetings of this party ....
we cannot say that we have to get out of nuclear power just because in an area (5 km circle) in a well-defined country we have seen that the population has been affected by a disease (only one type of cancer) (in the case where we will consider that this study is serious)
just for a simple reason because we can build power plants in the middle of the desert where the first inhabitant is 200 km away while strictly applying the same precaution applied in europe. It is an investment for these countries which allows them additional financial support (+ petroleum export) or less CO2 emission for everyone. European experts and controllers must use these establishments to avoid drifts
I wonder: is the risk of starvation and the depletion of water tables not in fact much greater than the risks of a nuclear power plant built under European standards? (If poor countries find themselves without natural resources)
incidentally the facts speak for itself when it comes to mortality rates today
wouldn't it be wiser today to develop the electric solution (transport, 100% electric car etc) and nuclear electricity (especially with regard to safety and fuel)? instead of being found in the case of Germany or a massive return to coal.
would it not be wiser to put an end to this artificially low price of hydrocarbons (because of speculation and not the real need of society)
Certainly the nuclear solution is not the best solution, but a hasty exit from the nuclear industry without having another acceptable return on investment solution is big bullshit.
however it is necessary to invest in all the "possible" possibilities of renewable energy and especially thermal energy in deserts and wind turbines.
but to stay on topic I have a question:
nuclear cogeneration can be very interesting for the desalination of water for agricultural use. A nuclear power station generates hot water (67% of energy wasted for nothing) and part of the electricity produced (at night for example> decrease in demand therefore better use of the network and less loss by Joule effect) to reverse osmosis modules. The consumption of electricity to provide the necessary pressure should decrease by the effect of temperature and therefore viscosity
And finally transform the desert into paradise!
Are there sources on the web on this subject?
and what do you think we can reach 0.15 € / m3 of threshold water from which agriculture in the desert becomes profitable?
What are the health risks of using water vapor from power plants in agriculture?
and thank you for your help
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 182 guests