strict management of energy 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 ...
Ortograf-fr
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 5
Registration: 05/05/07, 18:41
Location: mortal (doubs)

strict management of energy cogeneration =




by Ortograf-fr » 05/05/07, 20:43

On the sidelines of the eco-friendly armor-AREVA:
Rigorous management of energy resources: the forbidden truths


Nuclear power plants have a yield of 33%. In other words, they send in nature, in the form of heat, a quantity of energy twice as much as that which they send on the electrical network.

Sometimes they discharge water around 25 ° C in rivers, sometimes they send in cooling towers water around 35 degrees that will fall in rain and warm the atmosphere to cool.

If we consider that a good part of the electric energy sold by EDF in the winter is used for heating homes, then we discover an absolutely staggering situation: on the energy supplied by the fuel,

- a third is converted into electrical energy to heat buildings to the temperature of 20 degrees,

- at the same time, twice as much energy from the water to 35 degrees that will warm the air of time!

These same plants could very easily produce water at 80 degrees for example, for a large-scale district heating, with a derisory decrease in the electric power supplied.

From this consideration, obviously, the optimal management of resources is in the CHP. The systematic development of cogeneration would make it possible to have as much heat and as much electricity by consuming TWICE LESS energy resources.

The large cogeneration consists in valuing the thermal discharges of thermal power plants for district heating.

Small CHP will be favored by ecologists because of its human dimension. It consists of replacing oil or gas boilers with generators, with which the heat produced will be used for heating.

In fact, all traditional heaters are incompatible with a rigorous management of our energy resources.

Because of the systematic misinformation, the censorship and the screed of lead which stifles our French media, we will be in tow from abroad for the most promising innovations in this field.

In the meantime, the wastage of resources corresponding to the thermal discharges of our plants is phenomenal. In two hundred-day winters, the heat lost by a 4000 MWe site equals as a loss to the demolition of all the buildings of a city of 40 000 inhabitants!

To deepen the question, see the sites:

1 °) Ecology-by-cogeneration:
http://alrg.free.fr/ortograf/ecogeneration/


2 °) for scientists: Entropy = waste.
http://alrg.free.fr/ortograf/entropiegaspi


These sites are also accessible from:
http://ortograf.fr

ORTOGRAF, F- 25500-MONTLEBON
Phone: + (33) (0) 3 81 67 43 64 Email:
louis.rougnon-glasson@laposte.net
0 x
Ortograf-fr
User avatar
nonoLeRobot
Master Kyot'Home
Master Kyot'Home
posts: 790
Registration: 19/01/05, 23:55
Location: Beaune 21 / Paris
x 13




by nonoLeRobot » 05/05/07, 22:09

You're right ortograf and that's an old problem (the waste of heat from nuclear power plants). But to be able to heat the houses with the nuclear power plants, it is necessary to put the houses to be compared with those, or to install the power stations in town, which seems hardly acceptable in case of glitch.

That said it seems to me (to be verified) that it is done to heat greenhouses, there might be way to do more ...
0 x
User avatar
Former Oceano
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 1571
Registration: 04/06/05, 23:10
Location: Lorraine - France
x 1




by Former Oceano » 05/05/07, 22:13

In Pierrelatte in the Drôme, it heats greenhouses and the Crocodile Park ... But even if the temperature drops, we could have insulated and buried aqueducts to bring hot water several kilometers away to heat homes. . The investment should quickly be offset by the heating savings achieved.
0 x
[MODO Mode = ON]
Zieuter but do not think less ...
Peugeot Ion (VE), KIA Optime PHEV, VAE, no electric motorcycle yet...
Obelix
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 535
Registration: 10/11/04, 09:22
Location: Toulon




by Obelix » 05/05/07, 23:00

Hello,

Warning !! Nuclear power plants are not primarily intended to provide electricity !!
Their adjustments are made to provide as much fissile material as possible for the nuclear force, then it is optimized by producing electricity from the cooling water.
The opposite (manufacture electricity and have radioactive waste) is for the common man and justify the plants and their implementation .... hello gogos!

So cogeneration is not their biggest problem, just a plus or minus for the gallery and the gogos!

Obelix
0 x
User avatar
nonoLeRobot
Master Kyot'Home
Master Kyot'Home
posts: 790
Registration: 19/01/05, 23:55
Location: Beaune 21 / Paris
x 13




by nonoLeRobot » 06/05/07, 00:25

Obelix you have information that make you say that ???

Already it seems to me that what is doing for the power plant (uranium) is not the same as what is done in the bombs (plutonium).

But what surprises me most is the quantities, if at worst a power plant (and I guess that too much cpcp) was used to justify the manufacture of bombs which we already have a stoc why have so much! ...
0 x
Obelix
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 535
Registration: 10/11/04, 09:22
Location: Toulon




by Obelix » 06/05/07, 10:33

nonoLeRobot wrote:Obelix you have information that make you say that ???

Already it seems to me that what is doing for the power plant (uranium) is not the same as what is done in the bombs (plutonium).

But what surprises me most is the quantities, if at worst a power plant (and I guess that too much cpcp) was used to justify the manufacture of bombs which we already have a stoc why have so much! ...


Hello,

To be honest, I was involved, forty years ago, in the manufacture and control of power plant controls (fees paid out of school) to saint laurent des eaux ......

2) a plutonium bomb has a uranium detonator (one starts in fusion to finish in fission)

3) a bomb is not eternal !! the operational life is less than five years!
So we have to rebuild a bomb every five years minimum (the radioactivity of fissile material decreases with time)

4) The proportion of "useful" material for a bomb is very low in the central fuel and it takes a good tonnage to extract a few kilos.

I persist and I sign!

Obelix
0 x
Ortograf-fr
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 5
Registration: 05/05/07, 18:41
Location: mortal (doubs)




by Ortograf-fr » 23/02/08, 08:12

Obelix wrote:
Hello,

To be honest, I was involved, forty years ago in the manufacture and the adjustment of the controls of power stations (expenses emoulu out of school) in saint laurent of the waters ......

2) a bomb plutonium has a detonator uranium (we start merging to end in fission)

Obelix


After forty years, Obélix radiant, we must beware of confusion.

.
0 x
Ortograf-fr
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79129
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10975




by Christophe » 23/02/08, 13:18

Yes plutonium bomb ca rest of the fission ..
0 x

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 309 guests