EPR: the future Chernobyl?

[bham]

Greenpeace does not seek to impose its choices, it seeks above all to spark debate which often would be necessary.

1) Uh when they block beaver convoys in the city center do you call that "not impose your choices"? Bravo greenpeace democracy: "Do what I say and shut your mouth ..."?

What is "beaver convoy"?
I don't want to take sides for or against Greenpeace, but admit Christophe that you can't always make your voice heard in a democratic way since democracy ends up looking like a ghost.
Because you can say the same for the GMO reapers and all those who have action on the ground.

2) Pkoi is "nuclear" France so much the target of GreenPeace while at the greenhouse effect level it is the CLEANEST electricity?

Because it is not the only criterion to take into account. It has become the priority criterion today but 10/15 years ago, the criteria were those of safety and waste treatment.

I've never seen GreenPeace rally against German coal plants under construction...However, the current risk of global warming is NOT comparable to that of nuclear power (even if nuclear power is far from perfect) because it will cost thousands (tens of thousands?) Of development costs and human lives.

Greenpeace at the boot of the coal, gas or oil companies? You might think so ...

A big plot against the Frenchies? ah why not?

2 bis)What does GreenPeace do against Russian nuclear submarines rotting in the Barrents Sea? The risk is also WELL greater than that of an EPR !! They are even incomparable ...

Just ask them! through cyber action for example.

[Targol]

What is "beaver convoy"?

Convoys containing radioactive waste which pass from the power stations to the treatment plants or from these to the storage sites.

[gegyx]

Bordeaux, in need of shows and events! José Bové happening tonight.
http://www.unisavecbove.org/spip.php?article1596

statement:
http://www.unisavecbove.org/

[Nuange]

I invite everyone to get an idea of ​​Greenpeace on their own, to cross-check information.
I trust them for now. In 30 years of ecological struggle (weren't they pioneers in the matter?), No serious charges have been brought against them.
My main concern is not to say that the EPR is good or bad. But let the average citizen rediscover an awareness of global issues, and change their consumer behavior as quickly as possible. It is my role as an activist.
If you like to dirty this organization which is far from perfect (it is a human organization ...).
Me, it is the Earth which interests me and I think that concretely Greeenpeace obtains good results on the sensitization and the evolution of consciences.
Its mode of operation does not please everyone. And that's good. The actions are complementary and the more there are the more we will have the chance of not sinking into the climatic debacle.
And if Greenpeace does not deal with Russian submarines (what remains to be proven) is that it focuses on specific actions and that it considers to be a priority.
The adoption of the EPR commits France for 30 years on a scientific and budgetary level. According to the latest advances in nuclear physics, it seems that this generation of nuclear reactors is already obsolete. So why rush? Perhaps because investors have decided to do so. But does this go in the direction of the collective interest?

[Pyvesd]

First of all welcome to you Nuange in the debates and econological exchanges.

Post 1:

I was in Lyon. We had organized a shuttle bus to get there from Clermont-Ferrand. we can organize ourselves to minimize the impact of our transportation. We could have gone there by train but driving at 80% nuclear for such a demonstration 'it's not very consistent, but good!

Post 2:

The EPR solution still commits us for at least 30 years, with budget allocations that will be made at the expense of renewable energies and collective energy savings.

Post 3:

The actions are complementary and the more there are the more we will have the chance of not sinking into the climatic debacle.

QQ reflections in bulk:
- don't you show a lack of consistency between your actions and your intentions between post 1 and 3? (bus vs train -> oil vs nuclear)
- I don't always understand how we can be AGAINST nuclear power AND AGAINST global warming AT THE SAME time! At the CURRENT time, it is TECHNICALLY not possible !!!!!
(maybe this discussion should be the subject of a thread in its own right?)
- we will never put money from nuclear research into renewables, unfortunately, we must not dream too much
- ok with your post 3, you must reach a critical mass of the population who is sensitive to climate issues so that the changes to be undertaken are heard and accepted ...

The adoption of the EPR commits France for 30 years on a scientific and budgetary level. According to the latest advances in nuclear physics, it seems that this generation of nuclear reactors is already obsolete. So why rush?

So you will not participate in the demonstration against ITER + in advance ??? ;) nah, I'm sneaking up there



PS HS: Christophe or Nono, would it be possible to widen the size of the response window. indeed this one is bcp + narrow than that of forum (and more on my screen) and we lose as much in readability as soon as writing messages Thanks for the hours of perspective coding;)

[Nuange]

In fact, I am against nuclear warming ...

It seems to me that Papua, Sao Tome and Java are doing quite well nuclear and why not us eh ???

More seriously, if the heat waves succeed one another as they have succeeded, it will be necessary to find something else as cooling! Are we sure that the climate of the next 20 years does not push us to shut down the power plants that we will have started up and which bet on a climatic stability which is likely to be of the order of legend ...

Oh, I'm a little alarmist, it's my job.

How about cooling that of the EPR is it more or less greedy in water than the previous reactors?

Regarding ITER, I found this: http://reacteur.iter.free.fr/de-gennes.htm

It's short...

[Pyvesd]

I agree with you and would like to live like them ...

the problem of cooling the power stations is ... an interesting reflection to deepen

Regarding ITER, take a look at Wikipedia. It is an interesting starting point where they explain the technique and the issues, supplemented by a series of links to sites for and against this project.

[dedeleco]

Revelations from an EDF internal source: the EPR risks a nuclear accident
http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/index. ... page=index
http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/index. ... page=index
http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/actual ... losive.pdf

The future EPR with rapidly varying power could become a new Chernobyl according to a secret study by EDF !!!!!
Current reactors are working more secure because of fixed power invariable!
Chernobyl happened at low power !!!

[Remundo]

In terms of security, EPR is much safer than a Russian RBMK on which we have carried out hazardous experiments within a particularly incompetent Soviet administration and communication.

In fact EPR studies all the scenarios of serious failure ... If EPR is so slow and so expensive to build, it is partly because the engineering decided to cascade X security systems.

Trivially, it is a question of providing the belt and the suspenders on a blue of work which already rests on the shoulders.

Technically, the real nuclear problem does not lie in the risks of the power stations, but in the various and varied wastes which result from it and which one does not really know what to do.

Strategically, nuclear energy is as fossil and unavailable as petroleum. 100% of the Uranium burned in France comes from abroad.

Ecologically, nuclear inherently emits a little CO2 and in France, extrinsically wastes the energy produced by a massive and irresponsible use of Joule heating in poorly insulated homes.

But in the 3 cases, the financial profit is not affected in the short / medium term ... on the contrary

[Aumicron]

Technically, the real nuclear problem does not lie in the risks of the power stations, but in the various and varied waste which results from it and which one does not really know what to do.

I totally agree that waste represents a risk that is largely underestimated.

BUT STOP LESS UNDERESTING THE RISK OF POWER PLANTS

We have gone from zero risk to calculated risk. And we all know that the best engineers backed up by the best computers can never take into account all the potential risks. 2 fairly recent examples show this, one at the Blaye power plant during the famous storm in late 1999 and another in Sweden in 2006.

And never forget that in the countries of Western Europe, unlike the former USSR, we will never find "an army of liquidators" who will avoid an international catastrophe to the detriment of their lives.