EPR: the future Chernobyl?

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 ...
oiseautempete
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 848
Registration: 19/11/09, 13:24




by oiseautempete » 08/03/10, 11:31

Nuange wrote:Militant Greenpeace, I very much appreciate the a priori that some have on the organization. Personally, I am not trying to impose my opinion
Greenpeace does not seek to impose its choices, it seeks above all to spark debate which often would be necessary. Some decisions should not be taken lightly. 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.


Greenpeace and in particular its French branch which is run by particularly extremist people, are a bunch of funny people who do not tackle the real problems (or very partially), nor the real emitters of pollution and offer no solution except a huge spiel: their goal is only media, history of maintaining the flow of their vacuum cleaner, so they go and demonstrate where it would be useful, eg. USSR or even Iran to another similar "democracy" to see ...
the EPR why? because we need a reliable solution as soon as possible to replace the power plants that will reach the end of their life, in particular Fessenheim, which will not be stopped before the EPR is operational ...
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 08/03/10, 11:38

anyway, zero risk does not exist : Cheesy:

and in any case also, the ordinary citizen hardly counts on these stakes. In the decision-making spheres, there is a desire to move towards responsible energy only in the speech.

At most we can bark on the internet using electricity ... nuclear ... it's called taking a neutron in the face :P
0 x
Image
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10

Okay, but infallibility impossible




by dedeleco » 08/03/10, 14:02

I agree with the facts of Remundo's response.
Nevertheless this answer
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.

seems to assume that the risk of a major accident is no longer a problem and that nuclear power is definitely foolproof for a serious accident.
Severe accidents are always a combination of minor problems, the possibility of which has been considered improbable and therefore overlooked.
Past accidents considered impossible, but very real before 1979, lead us to consider all imaginable scenarios, but accidents always have more imagination! In addition an excess of security, too often broken down, pushes to neglect a part of it to function in reality !!
Residual risk analyzes:
http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/actual ... ons@en.pdf
http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/actual ... isk@en.pdf
show that the risks are not better controlled and that sooner or later a serious accident considered impossible will happen !!
The dispersion of a whole reactor core everywhere on earth as in Chernobyl is a level of uncontrollable waste much higher than the serious problem of waste which we do not know what to do but not scattered everywhere !!
Personally I think that the problem of major accident (very underestimated earthquake in France, terrorism, unimaginable errors) is the essential problem which justifies to stop nuclear, given the catastrophic consequences, an entire region banned for a millennium, and the total economic fiasco with an incredible number of deaths, but huge in the long term.
In addition, the health risks of dispersed radioactive particles are underestimated !!
http://users.skynet.be/mauriceandre/ra-rn.htm
http://users.skynet.be/mauriceandre/
The nuclear lobby manages to manipulate us to the point of admitting that the major problem is not the risk of major accident power plants (however very real in the past), but only the waste that we leave to our future children !!
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 08/03/10, 14:38

Ah the eternal debate on nuclear power plants ...

In the history of civil power plants, there have only been 2 cases of complete reactor fusion: Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

For the Russian case, an explosion of water vapor and / or hydrogen raised all the structures and the reactor found itself "guts in the air".

For Three Mile Island, fortunately the structure held up. There was no significant dispersion of radionuclides or radiation.

A modern reactor that is used properly cannot melt. Just like a properly used RBMK couldn't melt either. There are still plenty of them that still work.

But in case of "fun" the graphite it contained created a very painful fire and the control bars (which were almost all removed during "experimentation" ... before the thing got out of hand!) Could badly back down ...

You should know that in Chernobyl, they cut the reactor cooling pumps while removing almost all the control rods (because otherwise the reactor choked for their experience). Then there were incidents in cascades until the big boom.

The aim was to see if the kinetic energy of the turbine combined with one in the start-up phase (at low thermal power) was enough to restart the reactor to the nominal level in the event of a blackout on the network without using diesel generators.

Anyway, it's a story to sleep standing up.

The real danger of civil nuclear power is the permanent diffusion of artificial radionuclides in the food chain ... but also human bullshit, I admit. :?
0 x
Image
Aumicron
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 387
Registration: 16/09/09, 16:43
Location: Bordeaux




by Aumicron » 08/03/10, 15:17

OK for Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

But we came close to the disaster

a) in Blaye (see chapter Flood risk):

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_n ... du_Blayais

b) in Sweden at Forsmark (Incident chapter of July 2006):

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_n ... e_Forsmark
0 x
To argue.
Aumicron
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 387
Registration: 16/09/09, 16:43
Location: Bordeaux




by Aumicron » 08/03/10, 15:50

Indeed, the EPR is scary when we read this:

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualit ... obyl_.html

and even more when we read this:

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches ... _nouv.html
0 x
To argue.
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 08/03/10, 16:01

Yep,

Indeed, we would have been hot in Sweden with the start of a merger, like what happens. :P

We also had in France the beginnings of fusion on certain fuel rods. But not the whole reactor.

Do not take it for you, dear Aumicron, but the Nouvelobs and SDN in terms of nuclear skills and political impartiality ...

Otherwise to scare and controversy, 20/20. : Mrgreen:

Let them start by knowing what a moderator, a control bar, a Rankine cycle, a fission ... : Idea:

You know who we miss, huh Christophe ... we miss cekiki ??? Jonule !! :D
0 x
Image
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10

fast




by dedeleco » 21/03/10, 00:44

Remundo writes
For Three Mile Island, fortunately the structure held up. There was no significant dispersion of radionuclides or radiation

Okay, but considering the beautiful big bubble of hydrogen in Three Mile Island, we can speak of a miracle that it did not explode, because then the enclosure withstand at best 5 Bars recalled in the report from A3 ( et al.) would have left in pieces and would have polluted and contaminated the USA before Chernobyl !!
My point is my realization that nuclear is supposed to be infallible in perpetuity which is impossible humanly.
The consequences with a Chernobyl, (humanly totally inevitable sooner or later, in a populated region like in France, or in China or in Japan or in the Indies), obliging as a result of extreme radioactivity, in one day to evacuate forever (centuries or even millennia) an entire region of tens of millions (even a hundred million) of inhabitants, are such that it is madness to take this risk !!!
My point is that this danger is so enormous, that like the ostrich that hides its head, we act as if it were impossible, with a nuclear power plant which creates only bulky waste, even for environmentalists !!!.
Natural global warmingl (not even scientifically proven with indisputable certainty that CO2 is the cause), will not evacuate in less than a day, in perpetuity, a hundred million inhabitants like a new Chernobyl !!!
12000 to 14000 years ago, without cow farts or human CO2, the sea rose more than 2 meters per centuries, going from -120 meters to -30m, a speed much more than 10 times the current speed !! Indisputable scientific fact !!
125000 years ago, hot period as now, for 2 to 3000 years it was warmer at least 3 ° C and the oceans 3 to 5m higher, without the slightest human CO2 !! Scientifically indisputable facts, practically not explained !!
If we had developed our current progress at that time, we would, as at this moment, have accused CO2 of being the cause for sure !!!!!
However it was a natural fluctuation of the climate with certainty !!
Also the current warming can just as easily be natural as due to CO2 !!!
In any case, the current hot period of over 10000 years is exceptional for its stability, because in the past over such a period the climate has always been less stable for 400000 years !!!
Also this fact increases the probability that the current climate will start to fluctuate naturally even without CO2 !!
So the CO2 cause of global warming is far from being scientifically proven !!
In addition, the variation in sea level if it reproduces its level of 125000 years ago (achieved without CO2) will be slow in several generations (not 2m per centuries) and will allow time to evacuate the coasts with difficulty, but, not like a Chernobyl, in less than a day, which asks to leave an entire region by giving up everything overnight !!
The difference is such compared to global warming or cooling (almost inevitable, even without human CO2), that nuclear is a risk, almost certain humanly, much higher than the climatic risk, which one should not take if one has the least logical mind !!
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: answer




by Remundo » 21/03/10, 10:50

Hi Dede,
dedeleco wrote:
Remundo wrote:For Three Mile Island, fortunately the structure held up. There was no significant dispersion of radionuclides or radiation

Okay, but considering the beautiful big bubble of hydrogen in Three Mile Island, we can speak of a miracle that it did not explode, because then the enclosure withstand at best 5 Bars recalled in the report from A3 ( et al.) would have left in pieces and would have polluted and contaminated the USA before Chernobyl !!

It is true that they were lucky ...
My point is my realization that nuclear is supposed to be infallible in perpetuity which is impossible humanly.
The consequences with a Chernobyl, (humanly totally inevitable sooner or later, in a populated region like in France, or in China or in Japan or in the Indies), obliging as a result of extreme radioactivity, in one day to evacuate forever (centuries or even millennia) an entire region of tens of millions (even a hundred million) of inhabitants, are such that it is madness to take this risk !!!

The orders of magnitude are too broad, but indeed, when you get confused, and it happens one day or the other with a central, it's serious. Industrial risk is the product of gravity x occurence ...

The pro nukes argue that the occurrence is almost zero, the anti retort that the gravity is infinite. Meanwhile, the atom splits and the lobby is constantly gaining ground.
Natural global warmingl (not even scientifically proven with indisputable certainty that CO2 is the cause), will not evacuate in less than a day, in perpetuity, a hundred million inhabitants like a new Chernobyl !!!
12000 to 14000 years ago, without cow farts or human CO2, the sea rose more than 2 meters per centuries, going from -120 meters to -30m, a speed much more than 10 times the current speed !! Indisputable scientific fact !!
125000 years ago, hot period as now, for 2 to 3000 years it was warmer at least 3 ° C and the oceans 3 to 5m higher, without the slightest human CO2 !! Scientifically indisputable facts, practically not explained !!

Yes then there, it is fashionable to deny global warming. CO2 in the long term is as dangerous as nuclear in the short term.
So the CO2 cause of global warming is far from being scientifically proven !!

You can make the same kind of assertion ... by replacing "proved" by "refuted".

I'll tell you, don't take it for yourself, RC deniers only have nitty-gritty and "intellectual wanking" arguments when it's not just well-thought-out verbal talk.

To know the subject, you have to type the IPCC report in English, which means that 99,9% of the population is perfectly misinformed on the subject. Worse, even among scientists, including deniers, in general this report is simply read diagonally.

If we look for some serious arguments that testify to CR, there are many: thawing of permafrost in a few decades when it has never been observed for centuries, reduction of more than 50% of the ice surface area in North Pole, unprecedented retreat of Pyrenean or Alpine glaciers ...

These are climatic earthquakes: it usually takes 10 years to observe such transitions, but there, 000 years have been enough and this exactly coincides with the massive anthropogenic release of CO100, the destruction of natural carbon sinks (deforestation and acidification of the oceans ...)

The rise in sea level is also indisputable.

This is not proof, of course. But it is an overwhelming bundle of presumption for human activities.

Personally, I live in the central massif and I observe from my childhood that the winters are milder, the snow lasts less and the quantities are lower. Kid, I was having fun in a snowdrift 3m high between 2 of our buildings. Since the 90s, there has never been more than 1m.

Similarly, farmers observe the precocity of many harvests, especially everything related to fruit and grapes.

Etc ... For the moment it's nice, we foolishly say that it is softer and that we are less cold. It is the continuation around 2050 or 2100 which is likely to be boring.
0 x
Image
bbenoit
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 9
Registration: 22/02/10, 21:51
Location: Strasbourg




by bbenoit » 21/03/10, 13:35

Remundo wrote:For Three Mile Island, fortunately the structure held up.


In Chernobyl, the structure did not hold because there was none: the reactor cover gave directly into a building with a metallic structure, such as an industrial hangar.


I am also against nuclear power, but I nevertheless ask myself a question, if we decide to shut down these nuclear reactors, what should be replaced?

Just a clarification on the remark that France is dependent on the supply of uranium, it should be tempered:
the price of nuclear kWh is mainly composed of the construction and maintenance of the power plant, the price of fuel is a very low share (unlike a thermal power plant). If the fuel increases, the price per nuclear kWh would vary very little.
The exploitation of uranium in France was stopped because it was no longer profitable enough (and not because there was no more): as long as it is possible to buy it outside, it is preferable to do so since this preserves our reserves on national soil.
Regarding these reserves, the aim of nuclear power was to store 10 years of consumption on the national stock. The calculation is quickly made (90t per reactor for 4 years, density of 19), the volume is reasonable, while for the oil equivalent ...



PS: Reading this kind of document is quite interesting:
http://www.statistiques.equipement.gouv ... 1e446c.pdf especially page 26
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 : Bing [Bot] and 278 guests