The closure of Fessenheim, an ecological fault

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 ...
User avatar
realistic ecology
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 208
Registration: 21/06/19, 17:48
x 61

Re: The closure of Fessenheim, an ecological fault




by realistic ecology » 23/02/20, 20:22

Ahmed wrote:Ecology realistic (sic), you seem more focused on the oxymoron (involuntary?) than on the second degree ...

I assume, the oxymoron it is wanted; it is a question of awakening, shaking, the spirits which purr blissfully in the comfort of the righteous dogmatism of an old unrealistic ecology.
There is an urgent problem, the global climate change already underway: droughts, heat waves, floods, fires and hurricanes, and above all, the situation is deteriorating year by year.
Faced with this immediate, pressing problem, is it realistic to oppose the possible risks of nuclear waste thousands of years from now? (If it weren't as important, we'd make a comedy sketch of it). Yet this is the discourse of the old ecology, unrealistic.

It turns out that a certain number of countries are developing low carbon energy which can massively produce non-intermittent energy. In short, countries that build nuclear power plants. This is particularly true of China.
Now those who claim to be old ecology can think of answering this question:

Should we go and demonstrate in front of the Chinese embassy so that it closes all its nuclear projects?
Or should we congratulate China on reducing its CO2 emissions by replacing coal with nuclear?

I know, it's disturbing.

Nuclear accidents are local, limited.
Global warming is global.
Accidents counted, nuclear, is the least dangerous energy.

Energy pollution and dangers
1 x
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: The closure of Fessenheim, an ecological fault




by GuyGadebois » 23/02/20, 20:27

Your "new ecology" is nothing but a vast hoax that resembles old advertising, which we called "advertisements".
I also note that you often use this site to post links to yours and make a free promotion. If that's not marketing ... : Mrgreen:
0 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)
User avatar
Paul72
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 684
Registration: 12/02/20, 18:29
Location: Sarthe
x 139

Re: The closure of Fessenheim, an ecological fault




by Paul72 » 23/02/20, 21:49

Exnihiloest wrote:
realistic ecology wrote:... Nobody knows how to control it, it slips through your fingers, elusive, and pours into the CO2 sewer that is our atmosphere. We leave this sewer to future generations ...

They will thank us.

It is only in the fable of anthropogenic warming and its ridiculous apocalyptic forecasts that CO2 would be a pollutant.
But it is not. All the vegetation depends on it, and so do we. Its increase even contributes to the greening of the planet faster than deforestation.


it is absolutely false. Without going so far as to say that CO2 becomes toxic to trees, its increase in concentration is already causing biological problems: too rapid growth of tissues to the detriment of the structural strength of the tree. which becomes more fragile and may break more easily. Beyond a certain rate there is no more growth gain either. it would be more interesting for the herbaceous vegetation.
and the rise in temperature is not generally beneficial for vegetation (except for some regions of the world)
0 x
I'm allergic to idiots: sometimes I even get a cough.
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839

flytox




by Flytox » 23/02/20, 22:08

realistic ecology wrote:... it is a question of awakening, shaking, the spirits which purr blissfully in the comfort of the well-meaning dogmatism of an old ecology unrealistic.

There is a problem urgent, the global climate change already underway: droughts, heat waves, floods, fires and hurricanes, and above all, the situation is deteriorating from year to year.
Faced with this problem immediate, pressing, is it realistic to oppose possible risks nuclear waste in thousands of years ? (If it weren't as important, we would a sketch comical). Yet this is the discourse of old ecology, unrealistic.


However the sketch, you do it to us ... rather sad ... What is realistic for you is to do in the immediacy, the urgency, under the pressure, now I have a "solution", tomorrow ... it's a concept, for those who think "old". You know, those idiots who analyze the real consequences before handing over one more layer of nuclear, dangerous, inept and mercantile non-solution.
A solution would be to drastically reduce all of our energy mismanagement, be it Carbon, Nuclear, etc.
The comparison of CO2 and nuclear waste is a vast mercantile hogwash.

realistic ecology wrote:It turns out that a certain number of countries are developing low carbon energy which can massively produce non-intermittent energy. In short, countries that build nuclear power plants. This is particularly true of China.
Now those who claim to be old ecology can think of answering this question:

Should we go and demonstrate in front of the Chinese embassy so that it closes all its nuclear projects?
Or should we congratulate China on reducing its CO2 emissions by replacing coal with nuclear?

I know, it's disturbing.


What is disturbing is that those who claim to be from the "new" school see themselves locking those of the "old school" into completely nazi questions?
- The old school should be reduced to completely useless demonstrations in front of an unusual place, totally uncorrelated from the subject, without any bearing on the sovereign acts of a distant country which royally cares not only for public opinion coming from a foreign country. ...

- The "new" school and China are trying at all costs to make us believe that replacing Carybde by Scylla will bring something other than bad immediate solutions.

Nuclear accidents are local, limited.
Global warming is global.
Accidents counted, nuclear, is the least dangerous energy.

"Local and limited" .... a radius of 40 km evacuated to Fukushima. In the middle of the desert, the impact would remain "limited", but close to a large city .... : roll:
“Global warming is global” and greed is widespread. Image
"Accidents counted, nuclear is the least dangerous energy", a free statement which does not take into account the reality of technology and its hazards, terrorism, wars, the recklessness / irresponsibility of our "elites" and lobbyists.
2 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
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: The closure of Fessenheim, an ecological fault




by Ahmed » 23/02/20, 22:13

Beware, however, of the greed argument, even if it is not devoid of consistency, it obscures the essential which is the obligation imposed on agents to conform to the "subject-automaton" of abstract value.
Last edited by Ahmed the 23 / 02 / 20, 22: 28, 1 edited once.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9773
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: The closure of Fessenheim, an ecological fault




by sicetaitsimple » 23/02/20, 22:28

sicetaitsimple wrote:
Janic wrote:
Can we treat CO2 waste so that it does not harm? No !
Yes, it is just a question of policy and resources available financially and in good will, for what we are currently issuing.


Bah of course! Besides, Janic's carbon footprint must already be neutral (or even negative?) And it is applicable without any problem to everyone!


Hello? It has cut?
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: The closure of Fessenheim, an ecological fault




by Christophe » 05/03/20, 12:58

Economic fault too?

https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/publications ... nucleaires

The Court, which has already published several reports on the nuclear industry, has updated its findings relating to the shutdown and dismantling of nuclear installations, and has taken stock of developments in recent years.

First of a long series, the closure of Fessenheim was characterized by a chaotic decision-making process and is likely to be costly for the State. The following should be better prepared, especially to guard against future risks of compensation.

The dismantling in progress, on often old installations, is subject to strong technical and financial constraints, and knows significant drift of estimated costs. The administrative and security authorities encounter difficulties in arbitrating between the time and cost objectives set by law. The evaluation, provisioning and securing of the financing of expenses by operators is perfectible.

The Court made eight recommendations concerning the shutdown of reactors, the piloting of dismantling operations and the evaluation and provisioning of the induced charges.



172-page report:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: The closure of Fessenheim, an ecological fault




by Christophe » 30/06/20, 15:07

It was yesterday !

RINP Fessenheim !!

Like Rest In Nuclear Peace !! : Mrgreen:
1 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: The closure of Fessenheim, an ecological fault




by moinsdewatt » 01/07/20, 20:27

Too bad to have euthanized this plant which could quite healthily still produce at least 5 to 10 years of low carbon electricity.
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9773
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: The closure of Fessenheim, an ecological fault




by sicetaitsimple » 01/07/20, 20:55

moinsdewatt wrote:Too bad to have euthanized this plant which could quite healthily still produce at least 5 to 10 years of low carbon electricity.


It's worth it!

FHEV.jpg
FHEV.jpg (9.71 KB) Viewed 2607 times
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 251 guests