nor nuclear power and all-electric madness!the production of PV panels is not infinitely expandable.
Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?
Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?
simpleton
1 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 9772
- Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
- Location: Lower Normandy
- x 2638
Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?
Janic wrote: nor nuclear power and all-electric madness!
My pov' Janic...
Did you at least understand that the subject put on the table by NCSH had a global character (the production of non-fossil hydrocarbons) before talking about "nuclear and all-electric", a specifically French subject?
Nuclear which, moreover, and for about 40 years, has provided you with around 70% of the electricity you consume....
0 x
Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?
sicetaitsimple wrote:Janic wrote: nor nuclear power and all-electric madness!
My pov' Janic...
Did you at least understand that the subject put on the table by NCSH had a global character (the production of non-fossil hydrocarbons) before talking about "nuclear and all-electric", a specifically French subject?
Nuclear which, moreover, and for about 40 years, has provided you with around 70% of the electricity you consume....
"All electric" is no longer a specifically French subject, if ever there was one.
It is a global project promoted by many international specialists for more than ten years, relayed by all the pro-climatic media which pour out a "single thought" on a paralyzed public, which now demands that let's go as fast as possible.
The worst part is that the politicians rushed into it, dismissing the dissonant voices that proposed other complementary solutions.
And yet, the future is preparing; it is not a question of noticing along the way that we are going straight into the wall.
Carbon Neutrality in 2050 is almost tomorrow.
Getting non-fossil carbon energy industrial projects to maturity cannot be put off indefinitely.
What was voted on September 14 in the European Parliament will make it possible to launch many projects.
This is only the beginning, before more spectacular phases of massive deployments as proposed by NCSH on October 20th.
0 x
To discover the parallel universe of non-fossil carbon energy carriers, take the time to browse (15 min) the website NCSH : http://www.ncsh.eu/language/fr/energie-et-matiere/
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 9772
- Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
- Location: Lower Normandy
- x 2638
Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?
NCSH wrote:Getting non-fossil carbon energy industrial projects to maturity cannot be put off indefinitely.
You have the right to think so and to wish so, but apart from demonstration projects which will be financed to advance the schmilblick, I personally think that it will not emerge industrially for many years, the electrification of uses will be ( and this is normal) priority .
And once again, as long as the hydrogen molecule necessary for refining, fertilizers and the like is not produced by electrolysis from renewables rather than by reforming hydrocarbons, it would be bullshit to make a fuel out of it.
It's just my opinion.
0 x
Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?
sicetaitsimple wrote:NCSH wrote:Getting non-fossil carbon energy industrial projects to maturity cannot be put off indefinitely.
You have the right to think so and to wish so, but apart from demonstration projects which will be financed to advance the schmilblick, I personally think that it will not emerge industrially for many years, the electrification of uses will be ( and this is normal) priority .
And once again, as long as the hydrogen molecule necessary for refining, fertilizers and the like is not produced by electrolysis from renewables rather than by reforming hydrocarbons, it would be bullshit to make a fuel out of it.
It's just my opinion.
The electrification of uses is only the main solution immediately available for the current decade.
Beyond that,...we'll talk about it.
0 x
To discover the parallel universe of non-fossil carbon energy carriers, take the time to browse (15 min) the website NCSH : http://www.ncsh.eu/language/fr/energie-et-matiere/
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 9772
- Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
- Location: Lower Normandy
- x 2638
Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?
NCSH wrote:The electrification of uses is only the main solution immediately available for the current decade.
Beyond that,...we'll talk about it.
Not only. The electrification of uses goes hand in hand with all other things being equal an increase in electricity consumption, for example electric vehicles or heat pumps.
But there is also, apart from any breakthrough technological development, the gradual replacement of sources of electricity production of fossil or fissile origin by renewable sources which is a huge potential.
Germany, for example, took around 15 years to go from 15% electricity from renewable sources to around 50% today. Going all out (and with consequent price increases), there have been years with nearly 10GW of PV installed.
0 x
Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?
23/10/22, 19:44
Janic wrote:
The difference is only that instead of polluting directly the atmosphere, your nuclear first pollutes the soil for thousands, millions of years before rising in the open air.
Janic wrote:
simpletonnor nuclear power and all-electric madness!
stupid reasoning, my simpleton pov; it's as if decades ago a zigoto like you had said that coal (and later fuel oil) provided us with 70% of the electricity consumed. Think a little before you say that kind of nonsense.My pov' Janic...
Nuclear which, moreover, and for about 40 years, has provided you with around 70% of the electricity you consume...
The difference is only that instead of polluting directly the atmosphere, your nuclear first pollutes the soil for thousands, millions of years before rising in the open air.
1 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 9772
- Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
- Location: Lower Normandy
- x 2638
Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?
Janic wrote:The difference is only that instead of polluting directly the atmosphere, your nuclear first pollutes the soil for thousands, millions of years before rising in the open air.
for Janic who cares about what will happen to our successors in thousands or millions of years....
0 x
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 9772
- Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
- Location: Lower Normandy
- x 2638
Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?
Janic wrote: stupid reasoning, my simpleton pov; it's as if decades ago a zigoto like you had said that coal (and later fuel oil) provided us with 70% of the electricity consumed. Think a little before you say that kind of nonsense.
Ah, because nuclear power hasn't provided you with around 40% of the electricity you consume for about 70 years? You don't live in France? Or are you isolated from the network, with a generator? Tell us everything....
0 x
- Obamot
- Econologue expert
- posts: 28725
- Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
- Location: regio genevesis
- x 5538
Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?
I didn't have the feeling that what Janic was saying was limited to France, moreover he didn't say it!
It is therefore not worth denigrating him, for my part I immediately understood this aspect of hegemony of the nuclear powers (and that they should be stopped), since what he says is all the more topical with the Ukrainian conflict, since civilian nuclear power makes it possible to produce the isotopes used in the military thanks to centrifuges enriching uranium in U235: and this for nearly 3% for the civilian but especially 90% for the military : de facto planetary problem!
And in Ukraine currently looms BOTH threats. When you say that Janic's remark would only concern France, it is completely false since the consequences in the event of a conflict are global with “low dose irradiation” (and even at high doses with Fukushima, perhaps the worse with the pollution of the oceans — thank you for the fish we eat, the whole food chain is contaminated — then now the nuclear blackmail of the Anglo-Saxons which threatens all of Europe (if we are to believe the Russians, well that no matter which side is guilty of it, there the Ukros continue their bombardments of the Zaparojie power plant).
If at first I recognized that nuclear power could temporarily and partially protect France from the problems of energy shortage, it comes back to us like a boomerang in the face with the military threat. So you are wrong to denigrate Janic on this point. The problem, and what it says, inevitably has global repercussions.
Ukraine must also make us think about the end of nuclear power due to lack of fuel one day or another. We therefore have every interest in making friends with the Arabs, the Russians, the Chinese, EVERYONE, by becoming more virtuous again, we will undoubtedly need a very small part (as large as Portugal) of their deserts, which are immense... This area would POTENTIALLY be able to cover all our energy needs and beyond, by combining it with renewable energies: since we must not be short-sighted. And necessarily to produce hydrogen in different stable forms.
Solar wins in the end, unless we blow up the planet before... CQFD
There are few countries that master nuclear technologies and they export, and what Janic says has a political component.sicetaitsimple wrote:Janic wrote:nor nuclear power and all-electric madness!sicetaitsimple wrote: The potential is enormous, and despite its annual progress in volume, the production of PV panels is not infinitely expandable.
My pov' Janic...
Did you at least understand that the subject put on the table by NCSH had a global character [...] before speaking of "nuclear and all-electric", a specifically French subject?
Nuclear which, moreover, and for about 40 years, has provided you with around 70% of the electricity you consume....
It is therefore not worth denigrating him, for my part I immediately understood this aspect of hegemony of the nuclear powers (and that they should be stopped), since what he says is all the more topical with the Ukrainian conflict, since civilian nuclear power makes it possible to produce the isotopes used in the military thanks to centrifuges enriching uranium in U235: and this for nearly 3% for the civilian but especially 90% for the military : de facto planetary problem!
And in Ukraine currently looms BOTH threats. When you say that Janic's remark would only concern France, it is completely false since the consequences in the event of a conflict are global with “low dose irradiation” (and even at high doses with Fukushima, perhaps the worse with the pollution of the oceans — thank you for the fish we eat, the whole food chain is contaminated — then now the nuclear blackmail of the Anglo-Saxons which threatens all of Europe (if we are to believe the Russians, well that no matter which side is guilty of it, there the Ukros continue their bombardments of the Zaparojie power plant).
If at first I recognized that nuclear power could temporarily and partially protect France from the problems of energy shortage, it comes back to us like a boomerang in the face with the military threat. So you are wrong to denigrate Janic on this point. The problem, and what it says, inevitably has global repercussions.
Ukraine must also make us think about the end of nuclear power due to lack of fuel one day or another. We therefore have every interest in making friends with the Arabs, the Russians, the Chinese, EVERYONE, by becoming more virtuous again, we will undoubtedly need a very small part (as large as Portugal) of their deserts, which are immense... This area would POTENTIALLY be able to cover all our energy needs and beyond, by combining it with renewable energies: since we must not be short-sighted. And necessarily to produce hydrogen in different stable forms.
Solar wins in the end, unless we blow up the planet before... CQFD
1 x
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 6 Replies
- 2288 views
-
Last message by phil59
View the latest post
04/03/23, 13:06A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
-
- 109 Replies
- 16993 views
-
Last message by Obamot
View the latest post
15/11/21, 18:55A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
-
- 0 Replies
- 5791 views
-
Last message by Exnihiloest
View the latest post
08/07/21, 17:56A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
-
- 2 Replies
- 3380 views
-
Last message by Janic
View the latest post
22/06/21, 07:46A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
-
- 9 Replies
- 3018 views
-
Last message by moinsdewatt
View the latest post
03/05/21, 15:54A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
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 252 guests