Biogas in Quebec with household waste

[jonule]

no I think you are confusing everything, Cmoa.

a CET (please do not have it explained) is only a landfill, as for nuclear waste that the lobby absolutely wants to bury in the ground like in Bure ... this is why it must go up quite a lot of CET, since now France has agreed to bury ALL nuclear waste from neighboring countries in our beautiful country ... you do not give me any pleasure.

nothing to do with a Biogas installation as I indicated.

the raw materials, left in the open air let the gas go, while in a biogas installation, it is recovered, and much faster. what's left is the fertilizer, capice?
they just have to be accepted by the agricultural sectors which can refuse fertilizers of petroleum origin ...

for wind turbines you drool, it's not 2MW.
"
An offshore wind turbine today = up to 3 MW
An offshore wind turbine in 2010 = more than 5 MW
"
http://www.planete-eolienne.fr/produire ... icite.html
and it will go on growing.
to speak of Chinon, there are many hills, right? good the wind should be max.
> not to mention that the 4 power stations serve an enormous surface, which must be installed with wind turbines, so they would not all be next to each other.
> not to mention that this production is in surplus and is sold to neighboring countries, so there is overproduction.

no need for French-style means to develop the facilities, they already exist, it's not the design offices that are lacking and the resellers, there is only to see in Germany and Sweden to name a few.

I will not talk about the eco-boo yann arthus bertrand or nicolas hulot, beautiful references ...
if the wind turbines do not turn, it is that they are not put into service, there must be a strategy it is not me who says how.

nice force calculation for the 1620000 tonnes of concrete, it's supposed to have an impact as an argument, but it's ridiculous I'm sorry.

and first of all the subject does not talk about wind turbines, if you want we can discuss it elsewhere ...

[Christophe]

no I think you are confusing everything, Cmoa.

Hmm hum ... jonule please don't insist ... the fight is too uneven ... and you're not the strongest ...

Sorry for my frankness

Confusing (voluntarily) CET of final household waste and nuclear containment center is very very serious ... If you had clicked on my links (instead of swinging yours which are highly repetitive and do not bring much l (one compared to the other) you would have seen what a CET ... Go and repeat it: http://environnement.wallonie.be/data/d ... /09_0C.htm

Personally I much prefer a well-optimized and managed CET than an incinerator ... A CET has an internal treatment plant, collects the lexivate and sorts recyclable materials (only the ultimate waste like plastics are entered)

But you my dear jonule you spit on everything and you adulate the speeches of the ecologists who hover completely ... In fact the more they hover at 15 the more you love them and you repeat their bullshit ...

Sorry, again, for my deductible but it's up to you to get back on the "right" path ...

[jonule]

huh?
why do you say that christophe

wait, a CET has nothing to do with a Biogas plant right?

and it has nothing to do with the Force, Iodophe.

a power plant provides electricity for 10 years, a good + wind turbine.
I also think that the 4 plants are not running full all the time, so we cannot say "they can make 900 MW so they make 900 MW".

Chinon: 3 employee suicides and 1 accident in 2007:
"According to a report from the Nuclear Safety Authority dating from October 2002, certain backup functions ensuring the cooling of the reactor may no longer be provided in the event of an earthquake. [1]

A magnitude 4 earthquake whose epicenter is almost below the Chinon power station was recorded on November 5, 2006 at 01:37. It was felt as far as Angers and Beaupréau. [2]
"
wow what avant garde technology ...

but let's go back to our sheep: can you specify Cmoa what are a CET and a STEP, that we do not speak in a vacuum?
Quebec City chose which of the 2?

[Christophe]

STEP = Water treatment and purification station.

So it has NOTHING to do with a CET ....

For the CET you are going to click on this FUCKING SHIT LINK !!!!!!!!!!

http://environnement.wallonie.be/data/d ... /09_0C.htm

That's it you annoyed me!

[jonule]

ah you answered before me.

Sorry for my frankness

I think you really have a bad opinion of me and you take advantage of it every time to insult me ​​and be offensive, sorry for my frankness

But you my dear jonule you spit on everything and you adulate the speeches of the ecologists who hover completely ... In fact the more they hover at 15 the more you love them and you repeat their bullshit ...

very well, what green speech? what bullshit ? I would like to understand these insinuations, while I repeat to you each time that I am not green.

Confusing (voluntarily) CET of final household waste and nuclear containment center is very very serious ...

do you think i confuse household waste with nuclear waste? it's bad knowing me ... on the other hand I know what a landfill is: it's made to bury, sorry, like a big trash can.

there is not in your link of gas exploitation as far as I know, the thread of the subject.
your installation was built before 1984 ... I'm not saying it's not good, I'm saying there could be better ... if ... the info was relayed correctly.

for the path to take, I will not necessarily take the one on the right ...

[Christophe]

So read again above, I put the link of a .pdf which speaks of the VALUATION OF BIOGAS in this CET precisely ...

I have not insulted you to my knowledge ... well not recently

[the middle]

For the CET you are going to click on this FUCKING SHIT LINK !!!!!!!!!!

http://environnement.wallonie.be/data/d ... /09_0C.htm

That's it you annoyed me!

I laugh with tears

[Christine]

Forgive me, but I feel like we're mixing things up a bit. The subject at the outset is the digester technique: organic waste is placed in a container, it releases gas which is recovered and the material remaining after the process is used for spreading. That's it, it's simple and it works.

There is no question of gases which are the consequence (collateral damage) of landfilling waste. They can be valued, of course, but they have nothing to do with digesters and the subject of this subject.

[C moa]

wait, a CET has nothing to do with a Biogas plant right?

Well uh a little so anyway ... but i will answer your last question first .

but let's go back to our sheep: can you specify Cmoa what are a CET and a STEP, that we do not speak in a vacuum?
Quebec City chose which of the 2?

First of all, I apologize for leaving in my explanations by thinking that it was obvious to everyone ....

So, as you saw on the docs, a CET is a Technical Landfill Center. To say that it is a big trash can is a bit simplistic because many precautions are taken before the installation of the center, during operation and all follow-up is organized. The CET are part of the ICPE (Installation Classified for the Protection of the Environment) because of their impact on the environment which are not negligible (cf. the second document that I linked earlier). They are therefore followed. The big garbage cans are rather what we called in the past the public dumps which there were frankly disgusting and not at all managed and followed. Here the waste is sorted by type and that which can be recycled is not buried.

The WWTPs are the treatment plants. To put it simply, we recover the wastewater from factories, towns and villages and the objective is to separate the water (which will be discharged into the natural environment) from the organic matter polluting for the environment.

and so :

wait, a CET has nothing to do with a Biogas plant right?

So the problem in the impact study of a CET is notably the creation Nature of greenhouse gases (some speak of the blow of biogas you see that there is no good in organic ), in particular CH4 which is 21 times more problematic than CO2. These emanations will last for several decades. In addition, these CETs cannot be airtight in order to keep them because the degassing would still take place and above all we would quickly have a rise in pressure in the "bell" with all the risks that this represents. Suddenly, we install vents and flares.

The same goes for STEP, either the waste is spread, or it is burned or it is buried with the same advantages and disadvantages as the CET buddy.

The idea is therefore to use their organic materials to produce biogas. In fact, we produce nothing, we only recover what Mother Nature rejects. We make wells at regular intervals to facilitate the escape of gases (so we are more likely to recover them), we connect these wells with a few pieces of pipe to a turbine, a boiler ... and we value the natural emissions.

Now these explanations given, you will see my first intervention in a new light. Again, I am not saying that nothing should be done, obviously it is more interesting to recover these gases rather than letting them escape stupidly but from you to me, I would like us to try to optimize these systems rather than relying only on Mother Nature (which is very good by the way. By the way, I saw this AM, she told me to say hello I know it sucks but me it makes me laugh).

Quebec City chose which of the 2?

In fact neither of them wants to set up small local units. The basic idea is good because it has the advantage of treating the waste locally, making a little journey, no heavy infrastructure but ...:
- The main problem is that the implementation of anaerobic digestion is optimal in an anaerobic environment so in a small reactor it will take a little time for it to start. In a CET for example, we consider that at least 10 m of waste is needed for methanisation to be optimal.
- Methanation is a very slow process. Again if in the TEC we manage to produce tens, see hundreds of M3 per day it is only thanks to the volume of decomposing waste. The production will be very low daily and before heating buildings with that ....
- The residues normally transformed into fertilizer, I want to but will it be used ?? I ask the question because beyond the ecological question, lobbies and tuti quanti. Do not forget that a farmer is above all a business manager with revenues, expenses, expenses .... If tomorrow you arrive with cheap natural product, as effective as synthetic products and as easy to implement, do not think he will send you away because he prefers to pollute and spend more. The truth is that most natural fertilizers are certainly cheaper but often more difficult to spread, less effective. What he gains on one side is lost ten times on the other. If you are honest, you will admit that you do the same in other circumstances.

I think that in Quebec, there was a good salesperson who went there, that he did his job properly, as asked by his boss, but that feedback will show that it is also effective than sniffer planes.

a power plant provides electricity for 10 years, a good + wind turbine.

I would not want to pollute the post too much with nuclear power because it is not the basic subject but it is necessary to re-establish some truths. First, a power plant is planned to operate 20 years straight away. But of course his life can be cut short if we realize that there is a major safety problem and that we cannot eliminate it. Inspections are made at each unit shutdown, ie every 12 to 18 months depending on the types of reactors. We widen the scope of inspection a little when the 5-year shutdown occurs, then there is the big 10-year visit with very detailed controls such as the pressurization of the reactor building for example. And so on...
At the second major visit, if the operator wishes to continue operating his reactor, the latter must be upgraded. In a nuclear power plant, everything, absolutely everything may be replaced by new equipment EXCEPT the reactor vessel. It is therefore on this equipment that the inspectors linger to say whether or not to continue operating. The feedback from the oldest plants shows that our plants will be able to operate for 30 years and probably 40. In all cases, it is the safety authorities who make the decision not the operator !!!

I also think that the 4 plants are not running full all the time, so we cannot say "they can make 900 MW so they make 900 MW".

Let's talk about reactors and not power plants because in a power plant there are from 2 to 6 reactors so ....
Your remark also holds for wind turbines, that's why I spoke about installed power and not produced energy ....

Chinon: 3 employee suicides and 1 accident in 2007:
"According to a report from the Nuclear Safety Authority dating from October 2002, certain backup functions ensuring the cooling of the reactor may no longer be provided in the event of an earthquake. [1]

A magnitude 4 earthquake whose epicenter is almost below the Chinon power station was recorded on November 5, 2006 at 01:37. It was felt as far as Angers and Beaupréau. [2]
"
wow what avant garde technology ...

As far as suicides are concerned, are the renault less reliable because there have been suicides at the technocentre?

Concerning the 2002 report, it is the preliminary report which was published following an earthquake which took place in ... October 2002. At the time I was there, the situation was taken very seriously. seriously and if it had been necessary to stop the installations, we would have done it !!!

[C moa]

for wind turbines you drool, it's not 2MW.
"
An offshore wind turbine today = up to 3 MW
An offshore wind turbine in 2010 = more than 5 MW
"

And in 2050, we will have fusion reactors so we can dismantle the wind turbines that spoil the landscape !! By then we will have hopefully also solved the cold fusion ....

to speak of Chinon, there are many hills, right? good the wind should be max.

Uh not that much ... And then it's a natural regional park so you can forget!
For the power plant, for example, forced draft aerosols have been installed to limit their height to 33 m instead of the usual 100 m. Suddenly from the Loire castles we do not see the power plant.

if the wind turbines do not turn, it is that they are not put into service, there must be a strategy it is not me who says how.

Well no, on all industrial sites, we take into account the wind rose to install the units. It is the same for wind turbines. As they are not orientable, it is necessary to install more to take account of this compass rose !!!