Nuclear Energy: all your questions!

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 ...
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 31/08/10, 17:01

Addrelyn wrote:A country where Bernard would be happy:
http://www.stuk.fi/sateilytietoa/sateilytilanne/en_GB/sateilytilanne/
Day-to-day radioactive dose in cities ...


When you pretend to manage a nuclear industry, it's a minimum, right? And don't tell me it's impossible or that no one has thought of it.
0 x
See you soon !
Addrelyn
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 166
Registration: 16/07/10, 11:28




by Addrelyn » 31/08/10, 17:12

bernardd, you really make a big deal out of nothing on these figures, and it was EDF who took them over from the environment ministry, not the other way around.

Obviously, they do not take into account the network losses or the "indirect" power supply to the power stations since they count it in the consumption.

Why no solar thermal, it is because there is none in France therefore no possible measure. (There aren't many in the world either). Same reason

Then, the factor 10, I think at first glance that the calculation that you made is a bit wobbly. I read it again and edit my post.


Another concern is the complete silence on the possibilities of substitution by thermal solar, by domestic cogeneration or by small wind turbines.
Finally, the presentation of big figures is clearly made to impress, while the systemic gains due to the distribution of production are overlooked.

For that, I think you are right to shout. In my opinion it is a little cocorico long live France, they put nuclear first ...
After, it is a document for the general public, it is by definition incomplete.
0 x
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 31/08/10, 18:54

Addrelyn wrote:EDF took them over to the Ministry of the Environment, not the other way around.


I understood correctly, since EDF cites the ministry as a source.

But as I wrote, it's even more annoying:
- because EDF has not verified these figures;
- because the ministry has published these figures whose bias in favor of new nuclear power plants cannot be ignored.

Addrelyn wrote:Obviously, they do not take into account the network losses or the "indirect" power supply to the power stations since they count it in the consumption.


So either EDF ignores that its power stations consume energy, or did they knowingly decide not to talk about it?

Generous when you want to compare to other energies.

Addrelyn wrote:Why no solar thermal, it is because there is none in France therefore no possible measure. (There aren't many in the world either). Same reason


Who are you kidding?

If the Ministry of Energy and EDF ignore the existence and the interest of solar thermal energy, they must change their profession: I understand better why Odeillo no longer has credit, its creator had to die in a closet ?

Addrelyn wrote:Then, the factor 10, I think at first glance that the calculation that you made is a bit wobbly. I read it again and edit my post.


2 tonnes of pellets are needed to make 10MWh, the equivalent of 1t of fuel.

Addrelyn wrote:After, it is a document for the general public, it is by definition incomplete.


To take the general public for idiots is not the role of the ministry.

Addrelyn wrote:bernardd, you really make a cheese for nothing on these numbers


If these figures were useless, why did EDF put them in its brochure?

These are figures that serve to scare, with the old antiphon: outside nuclear, no salvation.

It is all the more important to show the "soft" manipulation that they cover, as well as the de facto collusion between a supposedly independent ministry and EDF.

I speak of "soft manipulation" because to this type of manipulation, we can always answer exactly as you answer, by emotional like:
- "it's not him, it's the other,"
- "you make a whole cheese out of it for nothing",
- "it is a general public document, it is by definition incomplete"

And manipulation goes to the hatch.

I think that publishing false figures in the context of a public consultation can hurt.
0 x
See you soon !
Addrelyn
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 166
Registration: 16/07/10, 11:28




by Addrelyn » 03/09/10, 14:51

bernardd wrote:If the Ministry of Energy and EDF ignore the existence and the interest of solar thermal energy, they must change their profession: I understand better why Odeillo no longer has credit, its creator had to die in a closet ?


Already, stop identifying with EDF or the energy ministry. These are MY ideas that I give. Then, solar thermal to produce electricity and at best harmless in France. In Spain there are many more for example.

bernardd wrote:So either EDF ignores that its power stations consume energy, or did they knowingly decide not to talk about it?


EDF knows this very well and it is even extremely important that these sources of power are reliable for the safety of the power station which partly depends on it.
In my mind, a power plant consumes between 50 and 70 MWe in normal operation. (in particular for the primary and food pumps: 7MW each)
After the network losses, it's something else in my opinion. And in the 20% of production more than the electricity consumed, what is taken into account?


bernardd wrote:It is all the more important to show the "soft" manipulation that they cover, as well as the de facto collusion between a supposedly independent ministry and EDF.


Obviously not, the State has EDF at 85% ...

bernardd wrote:I speak of "soft manipulation" because in this type of manipulation, we can always answer exactly as you answer, with emotional things like:
- "it's not him, it's the other,"
- "you make a whole cheese out of it for nothing",
- "it is a general public document, it is by definition incomplete"

And manipulation goes to the hatch.

I think that publishing false figures in the context of a public consultation can hurt.


I do not think so!
You want fair and true figures, in this case it is necessary to know all the assumptions of calculation and to type 200 pages of figures for each calculation.
Each calculation is different.
What is missing at the limit are uncertainty bars.
0 x
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 03/09/10, 16:39

Addrelyn wrote:Already, stop identifying with EDF or the energy ministry. These are MY ideas that I give.


I was talking about the authors of the cited notices, not about you ...

Addrelyn wrote:Then, solar thermal to produce electricity and at best harmless in France. In Spain there are many more for example.


In fact, there are many more everywhere else :-)

This is a new law of physics, nuclear power plants that repel solar panels: depending on the distance or its square: -?

Addrelyn wrote:
bernardd wrote:So either EDF ignores that its power stations consume energy, or did they knowingly decide not to talk about it?

EDF knows this very well and it is even extremely important that these sources of power are reliable for the safety of the power station which partly depends on it.
In my mind, a power plant consumes between 50 and 70 MWe in normal operation. (in particular for the primary and food pumps: 7MW each)


So why don't they put it clearly in their presentation?

Addrelyn wrote:After the network losses, it's something else in my opinion. And in the 20% of production more than the electricity consumed, what is taken into account?


I clearly explained that I was taking the case of solar distributed over the dwellings, which limits network losses to the maximum.

To know what is taken into account, look at the links that I put, they are clear, since it is the Ministry that wrote them for the general public : Shock:
0 x
See you soon !
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 03/09/10, 16:44

bbenoit wrote:Regarding nuclear, the convention published in the OJ of August 15:

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTex ... rieLien=id


Thank you very much for this reference, which shows a small example of subsidy (only 100M €) of our taxes to EDF and AREVA, which does not go into the displayed price of nuclear.

How to find the list of subsidies to establish the real financial price of nuclear power?
0 x
See you soon !
Aumicron
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 387
Registration: 16/09/09, 16:43
Location: Bordeaux




by Aumicron » 12/09/10, 12:31

Tonight on The Parliamentary Chain (LCP) at 21H00, the Documentary by Thomas Johnson which answers a lot of questions about nuclear power.

The Chernobyl battle should be seen by all human beings on the planet and mainly by all politicians and decision-makers.

Replay on Saturday 18 September
0 x
To argue.
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 05/10/10, 00:18

Official hidden info:
we neglect security:
And a new Chernobyl in France is more likely to happen than we think!
We will not need to go as a tourist to Chernobyl !!
http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/index. ... page=index
http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/actual ... ession.pdf
We learn that a Chernobyl type reactivity accident is possible on all French nuclear reactors: ......
For the second time concerning a crucial equipment for the safety of the EPR, the regulation is violated ...
The head of the nuclear fuel department at EDF suggests at the end of the note: "The ideal would be to try, for the reactors of the future, not to take this type of accident into account"


Thrilling, sooner or later as men are not infallible, a new Chernobyl will occur in France, even faster!
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 05/10/10, 10:03

dedeleco wrote:The real Chernobyl was even crazier than this movie !! [...]:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=76-br1VeuLk
http://www.arte.tv/fr/accueil/contenus-divers/Nav-Ineluctable/2266462.html [...]


We never said why the USSR carried out the test exercise at the origin of the Chernobyl disaster, much worse reason than that of this film !!

If not :
Official hidden info:
security is neglected and no valid insurance for this type of major disaster !! :
And a new Chernobyl in France is more likely to happen than we think!
We will not need to go as a tourist to Chernobyl !!
http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/index. ... page=index
http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/actual ... ession.pdf
We learn that a Chernobyl type reactivity accident is possible on all French nuclear reactors: ......
For the second time concerning a crucial equipment for the safety of the EPR, the regulation is violated ...
The head of the nuclear fuel department at EDF suggests at the end of the note: "The ideal would be to try, for the reactors of the future, not to take this type of accident into account"


Thrilling, sooner or later as men are not infallible, a new Chernobyl will occur in France, even faster!

Yes, especially since there are not only accidents of the magnitude of Chernobyl, which contain the ingredients of a major accident! And all the more that the more plants we build, the more we increase the probability of accidents.

If we were to cover the equivalent of all the energy needs of the planet (11'724 MTEP ...>) by nuclear power, 15 would need more times as many power plants (or about 6'800, for 439 functional reactors today) ...>

Everyone agrees that we must not then wait for the duration of a half-life of a plutonium 239 or 241 atom => 24'000 years ... for a new disaster to occur ! Since:

Here is the impressive list of nuclear accidents having already occurred around the world (all types combined, since 1942):
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_ ... C3%A9aires

Or a hundred accidents of greater or lesser severity in 57 years.
What makes us ~ 2 nuclear accidents per year on average! Including three adults

Because in accidents, everything must be counted, including "the tests" and the development phases (the Chernobyl accident is due to an "experience" of "scientists"). But the human being is courageous ... (or an unconscious in a selective way?) He knows the dangers and knows very well that with the EPR and the generations which will follow, there will always be the same probability of new accidents!

At this rate in 25 years, we will be "only" at 000 accidents, of which ~ 50 are major.

But maybe not, with a little luck, we will have managed to catch the planet before! Because with 15x more plants it will be 750'000 nuclear accidents during the same period ...
...whose 22'500 major accidents = ~ 1 per year!

(mebon, in a century there will be no more uranium ... it will be necessary to draw energy from the oceans, if we get there).

... develop EPR ... OR DESERTEC, you have to choose!
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 05/10/10, 13:07

We learn that a Chernobyl type reactivity accident is possible on all French nuclear reactors: ......


Sorry but what is this phrase in a vacuum? A total nuclear war is also possible ... it is not for that that it took place or that it will take place one day.

On the contrary I think that military nuclear has saved millions of lives ... but that is another debate ...
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 235 guests