SUMMARY> "Dirty" energies: How to get out?

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 ...
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04




by pb2488 » 20/07/11, 21:28

0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:
The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 21/07/11, 10:04

Good synthetic doc of 2 pages.

The wood represents 50% of RE in primary energy, it is perhaps this figure that I had in mind and that is controversial on this topic from the beginning ... ???

The figure on steroids 50 millions of steres for just the domestic heating ... it makes 77% of steres per french, so more than that about 350 kg of wood which corresponds well to approximately 138 kg oil equivalent (mass energy factor of 2.5 oil versus wood).

ps: can you remove the http: // www in front of the 2 links of your signature to not make them clickable since they are dead links. Thank you.
Last edited by Christophe the 22 / 07 / 11, 11: 08, 1 edited once.
0 x
Addrelyn
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 166
Registration: 16/07/10, 11:28




by Addrelyn » 22/07/11, 09:39

To meditate:
http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/energie-environnement/actu/0201522854151-dominique-maillard-reduire-a-50-la-part-du-nucleaire-un-defi-pour-le-reseau-197015.php

You have studied a scenario with 50% nuclear on the 2030 horizon, versus 75% today. What is it?

RTE is used to exploring all the scenarios likely to affect the balance between electricity supply and demand in France. We have examined an assumption of erosion of the nuclear fleet, retaining on horizon 2030, as a case study, a capacity of 40 gigawatts (GW), against 65 currently. This scenario could correspond to an operating life of the current 40-year power stations, with the replacement or extension of every two units. Either a share of the atom slightly higher than 50% in the energy mix. RTE has only looked at this issue from a technical point of view, as the economic and social impacts do not fall within its remit. Technically, it is possible, but at the price of four rather heavy conditions.

Which ones?

First, efforts to control energy demand will need to be stepped up. This will go through many accompanying measures, especially in the building, where the inertia is strong. Second, we will need 40 GW wind capacity and 25 GW photovoltaic capacity. Renewables would thus represent 38% of the energy mix. For comparison, Germany already has 30 GW wind capacity and 18 GW photovoltaic capacity. Third condition: the creation of 10 GW additional advanced capabilities or erasure. Finally, the fourth condition concerns the development and strengthening of transport networks in France and at our borders. This job is not the easiest to do.
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 22/07/11, 10:08



Of course, the only scenario envisaged does not even mention that, in the meantime, inefficient waste can be tackled by heating with electricity for example, with heat pumps, etc., and that heat can be stored. of the summer underground, that one can invest massively in the insulation etc ..... then it tries to sell that the renewable, it will be limited, the exchanges with the Europeans difficult, expensive and long etc ... .

No, the hardest thing will be getting the rats out of the nuclear cheese!
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
Addrelyn
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 166
Registration: 16/07/10, 11:28




by Addrelyn » 22/07/11, 11:07

Of course, the only scenario envisaged does not even mention that in the meantime we can tackle inefficient waste of heating ourselves with electricity, for example


And that means what!

First, efforts to control energy demand will need to be stepped up. This will go through many accompanying measures, especially in the building, where the inertia is strong.


It's just that now, there is a chain in place, that people who have electric heating do not necessarily have the money to change etc ...
Of course you have to stop putting on, or at least decrease, but the time scales are long ... You do not build a new house every year, I think. When you have one, you keep it 10, 20, 30 40 years, and the heating system with, hence the word INERTIA.

and we can store the heat of summer underground


it's nice to see you dreaming ... : Lol:

I wish that pb2488 and behind him, the manipulative and liar nuclear lobby, deign to get excited to explain to me how 300mSieverts a year we can survive 30 years with a dose of 9 Sievert while the third kills surely!


It's easy, the mechanism has nothing to do with 9 Sievert all of a sudden (by the way, we're not talking about Sv at this point but about Gy) and 9 Sievert over years ... The cells do not undergo not the same impact.
- Suddenly 9 Gy, a bunch of cells are destroyed or broken and the body does not have the necessary resources to replace them all (so we have burns that correspond to the destroyed cells), so it repairs some (so we have a chance statistics that some repairs will get and become cancers).
- 9Gy in 30 years, your body eliminates and replaces the damaged cells, it does not try to repair it. So no burns and no cancer ...
300mSv by years is a bit strong (demagoguery ...).
http://www.veterinaire.fr/documents-v2/Documents%20Pdf/Lettre%20NSA%2073.pdf
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 22/07/11, 11:14

Addrelyn wrote:
I wish that pb2488 and behind him, the manipulative and liar nuclear lobby, deign to get excited to explain to me how 300mSieverts a year we can survive 30 years with a dose of 9 Sievert while the third kills surely!


It's easy, the mechanism has nothing to do with 9 Sievert all of a sudden (by the way, we're not talking about Sv at this point but about Gy) and 9 Sievert over years ... The cells do not undergo not the same impact.
- Suddenly 9 Gy, a bunch of cells are destroyed or broken and the body does not have the necessary resources to replace them all (so we have burns that correspond to the destroyed cells), so it repairs some (so we have a chance statistics that some repairs will get and become cancers).
- 9Gy in 30 years, your body eliminates and replaces the damaged cells, it does not try to repair it. So no burns and no cancer ...
300mSv by years is a bit strong (demagoguery ...).
http://www.veterinaire.fr/documents-v2/Documents%20Pdf/Lettre%20NSA%2073.pdf


Message hot to read for you too: https://www.econologie.com/forums/post208669.html#208669

Thanks for not deviating this topic to an HS pro / anti nuclear debate ...
0 x
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04




by pb2488 » 22/07/11, 11:16

Addrelyn wrote:300mSv by years is a bit strong (demagoguery ...).
http://www.veterinaire.fr/documents-v2/Documents%20Pdf/Lettre%20NSA%2073.pdf
Dedeleco has read the 300mSv by years in the table here:
http://www.bertrandbarre.com/diffenergi ... e04_01.htm

but I do not interpret it like him: It is a table which details the sources of radiation to which the human being is subject and the margins. Besides, below, the same author says:
(...) no health effect of low doses is detected (below a hundred mSv (...)
0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:

The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 22/07/11, 16:28

It is not a question of interpreting and distorting, it is written on this table:
http://www.bertrandbarre.com/diffenergi ... e04_01.htm
Image

There is well written on TOTAL of all sources in natural variation margins: 300mSieverts / year
which is good 3 sieverts in 10 years and 9 Sieverts in 30 years, deadly doses totally and inevitably for any man !!


and the old French 80 courses, from this nuclear lobby, repeated by Jancovici write well
Below 200milliSieverts per year no documented effect on health !!

In 10 years it is a dose of 2 Sieverts and 30 years a dose of 6 Sieverts deadly for sure, destroying the immune system with all kinds of diseases, the whole body déglinglé with the molecules cut into small pieces, not only cancers, that this nuclear lobby has the nerve to put away in fear of radiation or psychic diseases, to remove almost all the dead Chernobyl and dare to show with this trick that nuclear is the safest energy of all energies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPCxewpz ... re=related
Image

No response from Pb2488 with:
I do not interpret it like him
in a muddy and unclear way !!
This is not to interpret but to find that this lobby states that one can live with a natural variation of radioactivity reaching 300mSv / year without effect on the health, which allows this lobby to make believe that the radioactivity of nuclear accidents is safe, well below these 200 or 300mSv / year, and also to deny by all kinds of subterfuges and lies (dead for fear of radiation) the reality radiation deaths much lower than these 300mSv / an, with claims like:
(2) Among the millions of "natural" cancers, we will never be able to identify these cancers caused by Chernobyl.


Forced, stuck, they have the nerve to say to Addrelyn:
- 9Gy in 30 years, your body eliminates and replaces the damaged cells, it does not try to repair it. So no burns and no cancer ...

which is archifal, and criminal by its deadly consequences proven by plenty of scientific studies that the doses are cumulative throughout life, on the local treatments of cancers by irradiation, even while walking under the UV of the sun a little too much, like farmers, masons, vacationers, doctors, surgeons who operate under radiation and have cancers, and die (like the father surgeon from husband to sister to my wife) !!
Just a single damaged cell, to have cancer, and the cells are not all eliminated, otherwise we would never have cancer!
Addrelyn should live in this safe radioactivity of 9 Sieverts in 30 years and see if his body repairs or eliminates without cancers !!
For much less than that, the great scientists Curies, Fermi sacrificed their lives by dying well before !!

This lobby continues to lie, to abuse, to deceive, with false studies distorted, unverifiable (on Hiroshima and not on Chernobyl), made by the lobby, read the story outside the lobby of those specialists, scared to discover the extent of lies and manipulations, which are stifled !!

I repeat, as for the Mediator (same lobby mechanism that infiltrates and controls everything), after a Fukushima-Chernobyl-type accident, in France and England inevitable, because infallibility is impossible, this huge manipulation by the French nuclear lobby, will bring those responsible to justice for manipulation and criminal deception !!

There is a serious underestimation of the dangers of radiation, the risk of earthquakes, the risk of tsunamis, the real risks of accidents, the consequences of irradiation on nuclear workers, exposed to radiation and despised by those who use them. control at high level and avoid them radiations ..
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 22/07/11, 21:20

Flytox wrote: ........., and we can store the heat of summer underground ....!


Ah? and how much does it cost?

Do you have any numerical studies to show us?
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 23/07/11, 01:41

lessdewatt did not read enough econology while I repeat endlessly on 4500 posts / x times, admiring, what rare geniuses have achieved functional in the world !!

This is possible as realized functional to:
www.dlsc.ca
https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... mrk29Z.pdf
discussed on: https: //www.econologie.com/forums/summer-heat-for-winter-at-drake-landing-solar-c-canada-t10828.html
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post203921.html#203921
and therefore the operation can be followed live on:
http://www.dlsc.ca/how.htm

It is a Canadian well with liquid circulation, good size (1000m3 of ground heated by drilling at least by pavilion), where we store the heat of summer to find it again in winter !!

and what blocks to be cheap (price of a boiler, which heats free forever after) is the drilling of holes and the uncontrolled circulation of underground water.
Summer solar collectors unpretentious, cheap at all (black plastic pipes under glass or plastic), enough to capture the summer heat. !!

This company has a good part of the solution to drill cheap to small diameter and waterproof on its videos:
http://www.geosec.fr/
as well as others on this niche which pierce the cheapest possible before injecting in depth a very expensive resin by m3, allowing to straighten the collapsed foundations:
http://www.archiexpo.fr/fabricant-archi ... -3812.html

So by taking this type of drill and drills, there is a way to drill for cheap plastic tubes and even block the passage of water by injecting liquid cement instead of resin, under a few Bars!

Others did different, in my opinion less well, but interesting, that I quoted on forums econology already.
In particular a heat pump with well, powered by photovoltaic electricity !!

Finally, one can also store underground the heat at 300 ° C and more of a concentrating solar power station, copying a little what volcanoes do with their underground heat, to find it later, and to provide the heat for a central solar thermal giving electricity 24h on 24 and 365 days a year !!

The interest of the land is that it costs nothing except drilling, it is available in large volumes, at a very low price compared to any other solution with tank, water or other product, salt, lime, etc. .., for the same thermal capacity.


This type of solution is a renewable solution in perpetuity that removes all CO2 and nuclear for heating (proven to www.dlsc.ca ) and also for solar electricity without intermittency, with a yield comparable to that of the thermal power plant used, better than the current solar photovoltaic, which moreover gives nothing at night or winter with too much clouds !!

From 10000m3 of storage earth volume as at www.dlsc.ca the diffusion losses over a year become low (in the heat diffusion area on 3 at 6m, rather low compared to 30m) and for larger volumes, required for large solar power plants, the losses are negligible

One could even use the depleted and sterile oil wells to heat the earth deep and store the solar heat of solar power plants in the desert oil countries.
This solar heating would help out the last drops of oil, while making a conversion of these countries for the oil-free!
Free patent !!
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 229 guests