Nuclear: EDF wants to convert its fleet of EPR model

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 ...
raymon
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 901
Registration: 03/12/07, 19:21
Location: vaucluse
x 9




by raymon » 01/11/15, 20:27

They are smart: they do not tell us that they also need a network

obviously it is better a dam than a lead battery.
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 01/11/15, 21:46

raymon wrote:
They are smart: they do not tell us that they also need a network

obviously it is better a dam than a lead battery.

Wouldn't it be smarter an e-cat in his garage, and to cancel his EDF subscription ?!
:D
0 x
raymon
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 901
Registration: 03/12/07, 19:21
Location: vaucluse
x 9




by raymon » 01/11/15, 22:03

Wouldn't it be smarter an e-cat in his garage, and to cancel his EDF subscription ?!


Of course! you have no more arguments?
Easier than talking about the cost kwh EPR at 110 euros MWH.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 02/11/15, 12:06

The bottom line is not there. First the cost (as this bristles some), I had already asked this question to physicists, not possible to convert a conventional plant to EPR, much too expensive ...

Everything has to be shaved and there ... radioactive waste is put where, dismantling it generates much more than leaving everything as it is (as Christophe had said elsewhere). It makes you wonder what nuclear engineers spend their days on! But where are they going to get all this! It smacks of the emergence of a "new thing" bottomless money pit which they do not know in advance what it will give! While offshore thermodynamic solar extends its arms! (We do not need to go further south, no need for 800 ° C to produce water vapor to run turbines, here too we must aim for the optimization of systems and the storage of heat at shallow depth which should easily be able to last 1 to 2 weeks !!!)

It would be well, for example, to multiply thermodynamic mini-power stations in the middle of the mountain (above the stratus layer!) Why EDF does not want to see more ahead in solutions for the future ...? How much would a nuclear disaster in France cost in terms of loss of economic fallout, loss of heritage value? It would devastate a whole part of Europe. Mash but it's really ultra-urgent to get out! Bravo to the brave Germany!

I agree with the point of view on overly subsidized RES

And nuclear power has not been "subsidized"maybe? Stay at"subsidize"still de facto, the elimination of waste and its storage and control of storage ...!

Thermodynamic solar power is beating nuclear power, whose final yield (all inclusive) would be <1 (as two Nordic physicists claimed to have calculated), they would do better to invest in everything that makes them possible. EnR with the load factor / management of the ad hoc network (therefore storage, WWTPs, etc.). Better to invest in bio-climatic habitat to a good size of eXergie (rather than a company which heats with electricity) !!! Better to invest in optimization to go towards society at 2W per capita!

Then all the expense of the reactor, with a neutron fast reactor fuel availability is no longer a problem.
You need "just" a molten salt which is not flammable in air and explosive in water.

Heat can also be stored in concrete blocks. No need for reinforcement for blocks, it stores heat very well and long if buried ....

And above all to have a very attentive eye on what C! A does in North Africa (which is the key to our energy independence).
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 03/11/15, 18:43

raymon wrote:
Wouldn't it be smarter an e-cat in his garage, and to cancel his EDF subscription ?!


Of course! you have no more arguments?
Easier than talking about the cost kwh EPR at 110 euros MWH.


Arguments to what?
It is not enough to produce, it is also necessary to know how to distribute everywhere and from everywhere, and to know how to produce all the time otherwise you have to know how to store.
Have you quantified the cost of responding to new needs, or even replacing nuclear power, in terms of decentralized solar or wind power instead of new nuclear power plants?
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 03/11/15, 19:07

We call it the "FULL NEED"! Of course it is encrypted! : Mrgreen:

Here is again the Cassandre syndrome which reappears by insisting again with an e-thing which does not exist : Shock:

And all your blah-blah around the EPR is not the problem ... You have to both be able to produce all the time and store continuously !!! Not mix everything up: "full-need", production, distribution / storage, related load factor, etc ...

The source first: it is energy efficiency and the "2W society" no need to produce what we do not consume! Then there are the new production possibilities: EnR. This suggests de facto, the gradual adaptation / response to the problem of the load factor which must change, which will have to be understood differently as and when taking into account the integration and development of these renewables - which simultaneously with the implementation of new storage solutions (WWTP, heat in molten concrete or salt, graphene ultracapacitors, hydrogen production, etc.) - all of this will have to go towards decentralizing the response (rather than the universe current concentration camp) with a change of paradigm! Therein lies the challenge. In this context, the problem of the EPR is that it will seek to make nuclear power unavoidable: which must be avoided at all costs. Indeed, simply saying that it is necessary either "store VS produce all the time"Exnihiloest, it's not an argument. It is not a Boolean choice, it is obligatorily" all together "and gradually. We have here two conceptions which are opposed, and which however must integrate the one compared to the other (at least in a transitional period) and it's not that simple.

As for your "E-thing", if you could avoid polluting everyone forum with ... There is a dedicated thread, for the moment it's perlimpinpin powder ok, and compare that to EPR or nuclear: it's purely forfeit as it is for all of us . I also suggest that even in the dedicated thread, we only talk about it to the extreme limit in the future when its "marketing" will take place (lol), so exclusively when "it will be proven" (thin going to have to rewrite the laws of physics rhâlàlà ... it is therefore probably never) or that Rossi will have been put in prison, or a second time at the gnouf for swindling.
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 05/11/15, 19:32

It's weird, I have the impression that I was answered, but in this jumble of "you need this, you need that ..." I didn't see anything related to the question, the costing of "the cost of responding to new needs, or even replacing nuclear power, in terms of decentralized solar or wind power instead of new nuclear power plants"
0 x
raymon
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 901
Registration: 03/12/07, 19:21
Location: vaucluse
x 9




by raymon » 05/11/15, 19:57

In the jumble we forgot to talk about another aspect of the problem is the statistically almost inevitable nuclear accident in France.
Already a few little things here and there: treemilles island, Chernobyl, Fukumachin ....
Okay it's not in France and we are much stronger.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 06/11/15, 04:09

But the worst part is that it has already happened, even a reactor merger >>> what follows is indeed hanging from our noses!

Exnihiloest wrote:It's weird, I have the impression that I was answered, but in this jumble of "you need this, you need that ..."

My gosh, I'm just trying to put the necessary order in the continual confusion that we are soaked with, because otherwise it would equate to the dissemination of "false information", which would fuck her badly for one "scientific"anti-Ockham of your caliber!
... so it's normal that you don't find yourself there then : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 06/11/15, 22:23

raymon wrote:In the jumble we forgot to talk about another aspect of the problem is the statistically almost inevitable nuclear accident in France.
Already a few little things here and there: treemilles island, Chernobyl, Fukumachin ....
Okay it's not in France and we are much stronger.

"statistically almost inevitable": that doesn't mean anything. If the average accident time is greater than the time needed to find real new energy, not substitutes, I don't see where the problem is. But in the future, we will have (at least) fusion.

Okay it's not in France and we are much stronger.

Possible. The country is geographically more stable than Japan, and the Soviet negligence is legendary.
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 297 guests