Thorium: the future of nuclear power?

[sen-no-sen]

It is a relevant study but it poses the problem of the method of calculation. How far do you have to go to account for the carbon footprint?
If I summarize it would be around 117g CO2 / kWH according to this study.
The concern is that if we apply the same reasoning to the rest of the ENR technologies we should arrive at the same order of magnitude. I am not sure that we count the rehabilitation of rare earth mines or cement plants in the carbon footprint of wind or solar power.
It is therefore essentially a question of the method of calculation.

[izentrop]

Hello,
The site that hosts the document is particularly antinuc https://wiseinternational.org/
Plus, it's just a loosely-crafted, peer-criticized charge document when it came out.

Energy inputs were calculated based on various assumptions and assumptions about the technologies used in uranium production, rather than actually measuring them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Wille ... ergy_study

I leave the decryption to the specialists.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

But of course ... You prefer the leaflets in the lobby and Bardal takes more away from them ... Magnificent!

[Bardal]

But of course ... You prefer the leaflets in the lobby and Bardal takes more away from them ... Magnificent!

With a little bad faith, one can count the Ademe, the PSI, the MIT, or various other organizations in the nuclear lobby; but the specious nature of the approach will not escape anyone ...

Shouting "a lie" is certainly very easy, but it is more important to dismantle the lie; for Storm Van Leeuwen, this has been done several times, by his peers, and there is no point in going over it ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

But of course ... You prefer the leaflets in the lobby and Bardal takes more away from them ... Magnificent!

With a little bad faith, one can count the Ademe, the PSI, the MIT, or various other organizations in the nuclear lobby; but the specious nature of the approach will not escape anyone ...

Shouting "a lie" is certainly very easy, but it is more important to dismantle the lie; for Storm Van Leeuwen, this has been done several times, by his peers <<< Which ones? Claude Allègre, Christian Gérondeau? , and it is useless to come back to this ... <<< Well let's see, it's so practical ... let's continue the headlong rush and the mess of money screwed up

Precisely, ADEME gives a figure beaucoup more important than yours (+ than x10), I'll let you discover it for yourself. Afterwards, when it comes to the nuclear lobby, lies are not what have been missing for 40 years! You just have to draw at random.

[sicetaitsimple]

[
Precisely, ADEME gives a figure beaucoup more important than yours (+ than x10), I'll let you discover it for yourself.

Is it weird what you're saying? Are you sure it's a bit old? I see 6g / kWh on the ADEME site, that would make 1,5 PDC ....

https://www.bilans-ges.ademe.fr/documen ... ionnel.htm

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

[
Precisely, ADEME gives a figure beaucoup more important than yours (+ than x10), I'll let you discover it for yourself.

Is it weird what you're saying? Are you sure it's a bit old? I see 6g / kWh on the ADEME site, that would make 1,5 PDC ....

https://www.bilans-ges.ademe.fr/documen ... ionnel.htm

Yes, they indicated 66 g but supposedly it was a typo ... We can believe them.

[sicetaitsimple]

Yes, they indicated 66 g but supposedly it was a typo ... We can believe them.

Ah but no, you are really delaying! 66g / kWh was the average found in the famous Sovacool 2008 study which we have already discussed on the dedicated thread.
energies-fossil-nuclear / nuclear-and-carbon-emissions-what-in-co2-kwh-digit-pwc-EDF-ADEME-stanford-t15536-50.html
The Ademe had taken the figure without further analysis (you can verify, it is even 66,08g, see page 2949)

by sicetaitsimple »02/02/18, 19:51 PM

The famous Sovacool study is here:

http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacoo ...ar_ghg.pdf

Not uninteresting to read to understand the cycle.

However:

- it identifies 103 studies
- it eliminates 40 because they are more than ten years old
- it eliminates 9 because they are paid, or in Japanese, ...
- he eliminates 35 because he does not like the methodology.
- there are therefore 19 left, including 3 from Storm Van Leeuwen, the 3 giving the ladle identical results, at the top of the range.

Weird isn't it? Can we vote 3 times when there are 17 voters?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

In any case 6g is ridiculous, 4g is grotesque.

[Christophe]

In any case 6g is ridiculous, 4g is grotesque.

Exact ! Besides at 3g I already have personal problems ...