The closure of Fessenheim, an ecological fault

[izentrop]

Biomass is only ecological if it is local

Local or not it does not go in the sense of urgency to halt the progression of RC. What burns emits CO2 which takes much longer to be captured, all the more the retroactive effects.

It makes a lot more sense to keep nuclear power plants safe https://www.irsn.fr/FR/connaissances/In ... wGkGigzaCi and heat with heat pumps.
But no, the voter always has the last word, even wrong https://www.pseudo-sciences.org/Fermetu ... taux-et-de

[GuyGadebois]

It was a press release from the Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety and atom lobbies

[Paul72]

Biomass is only ecological if it is local

Local or not it does not go in the sense of urgency to halt the progression of RC. What burns emits CO2 which takes much longer to be captured, all the more the retroactive effects.

It makes a lot more sense to keep nuclear power plants safe https://www.irsn.fr/FR/connaissances/In ... wGkGigzaCi and heat with heat pumps.
But no, the voter always has the last word, even wrong https://www.pseudo-sciences.org/Fermetu ... taux-et-de

No matter what, hedgerows and thickets managed in coppice with selective cuts are carbon sinks. What is cut regrows, and the roots store carbon too. It is the most resource-efficient means of heating (after the savings in heating themselves).

[izentrop]

No matter what, hedgerows and thickets managed in coppice with selective cuts are carbon sinks. What is cut regrows, and the roots store carbon too. It is the most resource-efficient means of heating (after the savings in heating themselves).

Virtuous cuts are more and more replaced by clear cuts, profitability obliges.

https://www.akuoenergy.com/fr/kogeban it is also local and they do not even leave small branches to maintain the fertility of the soil.

[Bardal]

Biomass is only ecological if it is local

Local or not it does not go in the sense of urgency to halt the progression of RC. What burns emits CO2 which takes much longer to be captured, all the more the retroactive effects.

It makes a lot more sense to keep nuclear power plants safe https://www.irsn.fr/FR/connaissances/In ... wGkGigzaCi and heat with heat pumps.
But no, the voter always has the last word, even wrong https://www.pseudo-sciences.org/Fermetu ... taux-et-de

No matter what, hedgerows and thickets managed in coppice with selective cuts are carbon sinks. What is cut regrows, and the roots store carbon too. It is the most resource-efficient means of heating (after the savings in heating themselves).

Yes, undoubtedly, the family farm of a hedgerow is interesting ecologically (aesthetically also elsewhere); the problem is that economically, it is only interesting if we do not include labor or operating costs (transport, drying, warehouse, sawing, ...); if we count them, it is not generalizable and it is a scale unrelated to the needs of a country, or even of an agglomeration. Erected as an energy sector (power stations or urban boilers), this leads straight to an industrial exploitation of forests and an ecological disaster (this is what is happening in Gardanne). This is shown by the studies cited by Izentrop: the value of wood in terms of lowering CO2 emissions depends mainly on the mode of exploitation and the scale of this exploitation.

It is a very common mistake of environmentalists to believe that what is valid at the individual level can be inferred on a much larger scale (this is what separates a poorly mechanized and unskilled rural society from a industrial society with a strong social division of labor).

Personally, I think that wood energy is only a valid solution for regions with low population density and close to the resource, for installations of small importance; it's not that bad besides ... But it's only a "niche", not very important ...

[Bardal]

Duplicate ...

[Paul72]

This may be true in places (lack of resources because everything has been massacred in favor of intensive and invasive crops for hedgerow systems).
But not everywhere. Should not generalize.

[izentrop]

Social breakdown, explosion of carbon emissions and dependence on Germany: the salty addition of the closure of Fessenheim https://www.marianne.net/societe/casse- ... n-salee-de

Since 2011, several feelings have crossed the EDF employees. First there was misunderstanding. Why Fessenheim? Anger then. What is the point of closing a nuclear power plant before having a cleaner means that is equivalent in terms of production? And then, a mixture of sadness, worries and bitterness. What will become of us now? Eleven years after François Hollande's campaign promise that Fessenheim had to close in order to reduce the share of nuclear energy, the oldest nuclear power plant in France has stopped producing electricity. The result ? Several hundred employees (690 out of 750) must eventually change their place of activity, uproot themselves and their families. Several thousand others, which the plant made work by reflection, risk disappearing ...

[GuyGadebois]

But of course...
renewable-energies / between-dreams-and-realities-of-germany-t16012-90.html # p404872

[izentrop]

After Fessenheim, the new bone to chew on for antinuclear cells is the Bugey power station. Unconsciousness? utopianism? patronage? Reckless primary antinuclearization? An abysmal request.
Text inspired by Maxence Cordiez, which I approve of course:
- The Bugey is twice Fessenheim (which it was already very stupid to close, but hey, François Hollande needed it to be elected )
- Currently, given that there is still a third of European electricity of fossil origin, shutting down nuclear power means increasing CO2 emissions significantly. Closing the Bugey plant, all other things being equal, would increase CO2 emissions between 12 and 20 million tonnes of CO2 per year, i.e. the annual carbon footprint of 1 to 1,5 million French people (!!!) ( Explanations here: https://www.afis.org/Fermeture-de-la-centrale-de...)
- EELV asks ASN not to extend the Bugey power plant. A political party asks a technical body designed precisely to be independent of political power to take a decision going in their direction. We would have a political party that would ask ASN to extend the power plants, the anti-nuclear groups would be screaming
- EELV proposes to replace the Bugey power station with photovoltaics and biogas. Except that the orders of magnitude do not add up at all.
The Bugey plant produces double the amount of photovoltaic energy in France. In addition, the plant is controllable while the photovoltaic is not. Even tripling all the photovoltaic power in France, the service provided would therefore not be the same.
As for biogas, the Bugey power station produces 10 times all the biogas currently produced, and gas is a less valuable form of energy than electricity. If we wanted to transform this biogas into electricity, we would have to go through a combined cycle power station with an efficiency of 50%, so we go to a factor of 20. In addition, I would remind you that currently, we import 560 TWh of fossil gas per year, emitting 128 million tonnes of CO2 per year. We could already start by using biogas to replace fossil gas before considering replacing nuclear with it. Well, currently we are at 1,2 TWh of biogas per year, so it's not tomorrow that we will have replaced all the fossil gas

https://www.lyonmag.com/article/112516/ ... avant-2024