Why dismantle nuclear power plants?

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
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14141
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839

Re: Why dismantle nuclear power plants?




by Flytox » 19/02/20, 13:04

ENERC wrote:
30 years! And what cost?

I have no firm convictions on the subject of dismantling: if the 160.000 tonnes of steel can be recycled into non-radioactive products, why not. If it is to bury them in Bures, bof.

Between surface storage in drums, underground storage in Bures, or filling the plant with used concrete and covering everything with soil, what real differences? (we are talking about VLL waste)
I have a small preference for surface storage: at least we can monitor it. If it ever goes into the groundwater in the case of Bures, we are in deep shit. On the surface, at worst we move it.


A nuclear power plant was never designed to serve as a nuke waste bin. The areas capable of collecting "infiltrations" are rather limited in surface area / volume, far from being able to accommodate the 160000 tonnes referred to. So, if we want to do this "as it should", it would take a lot of engineering to prepare the "receptacle" and we can do something other than to observe: "Is this leaking ?!". Well, we are going to move the polluted water table, .... well it's impossible ??? Never mind, we will increase the acceptable radioactivity thresholds and voila ...

Chui pas divin but, there is little chance that our nucleocracy will find resources to finance installations / storage / treatment of nuclear waste worthy of the name, capable of securing in the long term a territory / population when it could cost him a arms or more. Always according to the right principle, now I'm gaining money tomorrow the survivors will die with radioactivity problems etc ...
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
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: Why dismantle nuclear power plants?




by GuyGadebois » 19/02/20, 13:12

Hence the urgency to end this sinister farce.
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)
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Why dismantle nuclear power plants?




by Bardal » 19/02/20, 17:43

Flytox wrote:
ENERC wrote:
30 years! And what cost?

I have no firm convictions on the subject of dismantling: if the 160.000 tonnes of steel can be recycled into non-radioactive products, why not. If it is to bury them in Bures, bof.

Between surface storage in drums, underground storage in Bures, or filling the plant with used concrete and covering everything with soil, what real differences? (we are talking about VLL waste)
I have a small preference for surface storage: at least we can monitor it. If it ever goes into the groundwater in the case of Bures, we are in deep shit. On the surface, at worst we move it.


A nuclear power plant was never designed to serve as a nuke waste bin. The areas capable of collecting "infiltrations" are rather limited in surface area / volume, far from being able to accommodate the 160000 tonnes referred to. So, if we want to do this "as it should", it would take a lot of engineering to prepare the "receptacle" and we can do something other than to observe: "Is this leaking ?!". Well, we are going to move the polluted water table, .... well it's impossible ??? Never mind, we will increase the acceptable radioactivity thresholds and voila ...

Chui pas divin but, there is little chance that our nucleocracy will find resources to finance installations / storage / treatment of nuclear waste worthy of the name, capable of securing in the long term a territory / population when it could cost him a arms or more. Always according to the right principle, now I'm gaining money tomorrow the survivors will die with radioactivity problems etc ...


Cigeo (Bure) was never designed to store very low or low activity waste such as steel and concrete from power plants, which are stored on the surface, especially in the Aube and in the Manche; this waste hardly poses any problem, since in most countries other than France, it is simply recycled as soon as it does not have a radioactivity superior to conventional materials (which is the case in 99 % of cases).

Geological disposal is reserved for "High Activity-Long Life" (HA-VL) waste, ie specifically for fission products (short life for the most part) and minor actinides (long life), the volume of which is unrelated to that of "very low level" waste. The storage location was chosen precisely so that the risks of leaching are zero and geological stability is guaranteed over a very long period, which would not be the case for surface storage ...

Incidentally, to worry a little more all those who are interested in this major risk, coal-fired power stations, and even worse lignite-fired power stations, produce more radioactive waste than a nuclear power station, with equal production (mainly Uranium, thorium , potassium, radon). But this apparently does not worry anyone since this waste is found, without special treatment, in the fumes and in the ash heaps which accompany these plants; "We" even use these ashes to build various embankments (highways, bridges, etc.) or for the manufacture of concrete. Understand who can, or especially who wants.

We are so little...
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: Why dismantle nuclear power plants?




by GuyGadebois » 19/02/20, 17:48

bardal wrote:"We" even use these ashes to build various embankments (highways, bridges, etc.) or for the manufacture of concrete. Understand who can, or especially who wants.

We are so little...

Indeed:
The engineer walks his Geiger counter in the parking lot of the Gueugnon stadium. The machine utters its shrill cry, which crescendo: the stands and the parking lot are located on radioactive waste from the old factory of Cogema. Half of the French regions are thus home to 300 million tonnes of nuclear waste.

.....

But in the film by Amara and Icard, an engineer from Criirad, the only independent laboratory for measuring radioactivity, discovers yellowcake (uranium concentrate) in the parking lot of a cross-country ski club ...

.....

Journalists also take us to Saint-Pierre (Cantal), a village entirely built on a landfill site. And in a corner of the Loire where Cogema sold embankment at low prices to the inhabitants, delighted with the windfall. Today, they are disillusioned: we realize that even houses are radioactive.

In Limoges, part of the inhabitants drink contaminated water. It is the largest French city most affected, since Limousin concentrated the largest number of mines.
https://www.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-m ... pieds.html

Following the closings of French mines, Cogema had to get rid of very bulky waste. His solution: dump them in the wild. Thus, 176 barrels contaminated with the “Yellow Cake”, this uranium concentrate, are scattered all over Limousin and in other regions. It was not until June 000 that Cogema found itself on the dock for "pollution and abandonment of radioactive waste" ... But dismay, Cogema will be released in October of the same year. Impunity for the polluter, because the nuclear lobby is not subject to ordinary law but to mining law ... Very favorable to its development.
https://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/Les-a ... uranium-en

In short, in France, everything is bathed in radioactivity.
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
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 16097
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5232

Re: Why dismantle nuclear power plants?




by Remundo » 19/02/20, 20:17

GuyGadebois wrote:Hence the urgency to end this sinister farce.

when we start, we never end with nuclear waste, only the amount varies.
0 x
Image
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: Why dismantle nuclear power plants?




by GuyGadebois » 19/02/20, 20:50

It is not false.
But....
1 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
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14141
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839

Re: Why dismantle nuclear power plants?




by Flytox » 20/02/20, 23:32

bardal wrote:Incidentally, to worry a little more all those who are interested in this major risk, coal-fired power stations, and even worse lignite-fired power stations, produce more radioactive waste than a nuclear power station, with equal production (mainly Uranium, thorium , potassium, radon). But this apparently does not worry anyone since this waste is found, without special treatment, in the fumes and in the ash heaps which accompany these plants; "We" even use these ashes to build various embankments (highways, bridges, etc.) or for the manufacture of concrete. Understand who can, or especially who wants.


How do we measure it ...

Lignite coal-fired power plants, etc., reject a lot of filth, the radioactivity of which is roughly distributed throughout the mass. The babyline remains calm below the tolerated threshold.

The waste from Nuke plants is much more heterogeneous, the whole "by far" is below the tolerated threshold, but there are "pieces" which have nothing to do there and which hang out with the rest and panic the babyline. These are the ones that pose the most problems and that we would not like to find in the embankments, stadiums, too close to the public etc ...

Chai not how is made the sorting between the "harmless" waste and the hazardous waste in relation to the volume it occupies, but they would do it as easily and as cheaply as possible in all irresponsibility that it will hardly surprise me given the "failures" that can be seen behind (in France, in eastern countries etc ...)
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
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Why dismantle nuclear power plants?




by Bardal » 21/02/20, 04:55

Oh, the measurement is very simple: we analyze the ash (the "flywheels" that go off in the smoke and the ash and clinker remaining in the ashtray) and we make a rule of three to find the annual production. These radioactive products are naturally found in coal (which is one of the minerals richest in radioactive metals) and are found concentrated by a factor of 100 in the ashes (the carbon has burned). The Robin des Bois association had made a detailed report on this question a few years ago, but it seems to have disappeared from the radars… In an ash heap, there is enough to make 5 or 6 atomic bombs… The kids play on it , rabbits and others dig burrows there, rainwater trickles down there ... Life is good.

The babyline wiggles there as every time it detects radiation; radon is emitted as every time there is uranium, and the groundwater is contaminated as in all radioactive soils (Vichy water is much worse). There is only CRIIRAD to be surprised by the radioactive soils of Limousin (or Brittany, or Corsica ...) and radon emanations from the cellars in Limoges; It is true that this large independent laboratory, which is our national pride, had well confused a Camargue beach naturally radioactive (and well known as such) with radioactive waste from Marcoule placed there, maliciously, by the nuclear lobby.

Likewise, confusing mining waste (which is nothing other than natural soil too poor in ore to be exploited) with waste from a nuclear power plant is gross ignorance. Waste from a power plant is known, listed, treated, monitored; the 1% actually radiotoxic is subject to a thorough treatment and will be enclosed in a glass matrix, intended to be stored 600 m underground, in a layer of clay (dry, it is a rock); this solution, not ideal since it is limited in size, has at least the advantage of being reliable and secure. Generation 4 will make it possible to find a more satisfactory solution by incinerating the most radioactive waste, making it disappear completely. But the soils of Brittany, Limousin or Corsica will remain radioactive and will always panic the Geiger; less however than in certain corners of Iran or India, where these soils are 100 times more radioactive, without damage it seems for the health of the inhabitants…

All this is not "as simple and as cheap as possible" but it has made it possible to know no victims or deaths in 40 years of exploitation; the same cannot be said of the radioactive isotopes used in medicine, sometimes stolen or misplaced, having caused some serious accidents.

I have long since passed the age when we play to scare ourselves, but for those who are still amused, this subject seems to me one of the most unsuitable: there has been no - no - death of the radiation from civilian nuclear energy in OECD countries for 40 years; even the CRIIRAD did not find any ... It is true that neither the Croquemitaine nor the Big Bad Wolf made victims either ...
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: Why dismantle nuclear power plants?




by moinsdewatt » 21/02/20, 07:37

Fessenheim judgment: "historic event" in France, not so rare elsewhere

AFP published on 21 Feb 2020

The shutdown of the Fessenheim power plant, a “historic event” in the words of Minister Elisabeth Borne, heralds a long process of dismantling, which has already had many precedents abroad.

A "historic" stop?

This closure seals the vast nuclear equipment program decided by Paris in the context of the oil shock and launched in 1977 with the start-up of Fessenheim.

"Yes, it is historic: it is the shutdown of the first two reactors which were the departure of the French fleet", underlines Thierry Charles, deputy director of the Institute of radiation protection and nuclear safety (IRSN).

The most nuclearised country in the world, France has decided to reduce the share of the atom in its electrical production, from 72% today to 50% by 2035.

In France, the last closure was at the Superphénix breeder reactor, in 1997. Previously, it was the Chooz A reactor (Ardennes), operating on pressurized water like Fessenheim but "smaller" (300 megawatts of electricity and not 900 MWe ), which had been arrested in 1991, and whose dismantling continues.

Why close a power plant?

Many countries have closed reactors for energy, political or economic reasons.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, by the end of 2017, 614 electric power reactors had been put into service worldwide, including 342 pressurized water (REP) and 115 boiling water (REB), launched for the essential in the years 1970 to 1990. Today, 50 REP and 40 REB are closed.

Germany, after the Fukushima accident in 2011, has given itself until 2022 to exit nuclear power.

Switzerland has decided to do the same, while maintaining certain sites for the time being. In December, after 47 years of service, the Mühleberg power station was disconnected from the grid due to the high cost of its maintenance.

Also in December, Sweden closed a reactor, for economic reasons, after 43 years, while planning to keep the atom.

In the United States, the administration admits that reactors can go to 80 years, but some close before, generally for reasons of profitability, notes the IRSN.

In France, EDF had initially envisaged lifetimes of 40 years, before expressing the wish, in 2009, that they be extended. Tricastin was the first, in 2019, to undergo the 40-year security visit.

How long should you allow for disassembly?

In Fessenheim, once the shutdown has been carried out, maneuver regularly carried out for maintenance, EDF plans a five-year preparatory phase during which it will be necessary to take out the fuels, cooled in the pool and then evacuated to the basin of the La Hague plant .

At the same time, it will have to constitute a thick file to obtain the decommissioning decree, by 2025. A tedious step because involving technical examinations and risk studies, inventory of equipment, etc.

"The operator must justify all of the operations, from start to finish, and demonstrate that countermeasures make it possible to protect operators and the environment", explains Mr. Charles, from IRSN.

Once approved, dismantling can begin, for approximately 15 years.

"Considering the international experience, 20 years in total is consistent," said Charles.

Then there will be the painful question of waste.

In Fessenheim, out of 380.000 tonnes of waste planned by EDF, 18.400 tonnes should be radioactive, including 200 tonnes (400 m3) highly radioactive intended to be buried in a deep geological layer (Cigeo project planned in the Meuse).

After Fessenheim, whose turn is it?

To drop to 50% nuclear, 12 more reactors will have to close by 2035.

How often? France's energy roadmap project foresees two in 2027-28, or even two in 2025-26 depending on current demand.

"EDF will have to organize all the sites in order to be able to manage them. We must be sure that the surrounding industry will be able to respond", underlines Mr. Charles. "The positive side is that the Fessenheim shutdown, which will serve as the seed, will allow the industrial fabric to get used to it, and having a vision of the shutdown dates will facilitate the load plan".

EDF proposed to the government to study the shutdown of "pairs of reactors" on the sites of Blayais, Bugey, Chinon, Cruas, Dampierre, Gravelines and Tricastin. Sites that each have at least four, the idea being to avoid the closure of entire plants.



https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org ... urs-200221
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: Why dismantle nuclear power plants?




by GuyGadebois » 21/02/20, 20:02

The idiots are released:
Fessenheim: plant workers threaten not to shut down reactor 1
The shutdown of reactor 1 of the Alsatian nuclear power plant is scheduled to start this Friday evening.
http://www.leparisien.fr/economie/fesse ... 264088.php
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)

 


  • 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 : Majestic-12 [Bot] and 232 guests