Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...
Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...
what are we complaining about? the Chinese buy ONLY turnkey with nomenclaturation up to the smallest screw and it suffices to reconstruct identically and possibly improve it. Whenever we sell something to them, it's the same process at work and we obviously know that. So why continue since it is a scuttling of our own industries as for Mittal? Business and business, whatever the consequences!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 13644
- Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
- Location: picardie
- x 1502
- Contact :
Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...
Be green, advocate nuclear!
An ecologist criticizes renewable energies, which pose environmental problems without meeting demand, unlike nuclear. https://www.lepoint.fr/debats/soyez-eco ... 9505_2.php
An ecologist criticizes renewable energies, which pose environmental problems without meeting demand, unlike nuclear. https://www.lepoint.fr/debats/soyez-eco ... 9505_2.php
I pass some and better.A natural problem, more than a technical one
If you can find a way to make cheaper solar panels and larger wind turbines, you can never make the sun shine more regularly or the wind blows more reliably. I came to understand the environmental implications of energy physics. To produce large quantities of electricity from low energy flows, they have to be spread over huge areas. In other words, the problem of renewable energies is not fundamentally technical, it is natural.
Take the example of California. Between 2011 and 2017, the cost of solar panels fell by about 75%, which did not stop the price of our electricity from increasing five times faster than in the rest of the United States. The same phenomenon occurred in Germany, world leader in solar and wind energy. The price of its electricity increased by 50% between 2006 and 2017, while the share of renewables in its energy mix also increased.
Illusion
Before, I thought that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I no longer believe it after looking at Germany and France. CO2 emissions in Germany have been stable since 2009, despite $ 580 billion invested until 2025 in an electricity network full of renewable energy, a 50% increase in the cost of electricity. Over the same period, France produced one tenth of German CO2 emissions per unit of electricity and paid for its electricity almost half the price. How? 'Or' What ? Thanks to nuclear energy. Then, under pressure from Germany, France has spent $ 33 billion on renewable energy over the past ten years. For what result? An increase in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply and higher electricity prices too.
What about the idea that nuclear power would be expensive and wind and solar cheap? This is largely an illusion due to the fact that between 70 and 80% of the construction costs of nuclear power plants are initial, so the calculations for solar and wind do not take into account the high costs power lines, dams and other types of batteries.
All the major studies, including a recent one published in the British medical journal The Lancet, confirm this: nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity reliably.
Because nuclear power plants produce heat without fire, they emit no air pollution in the form of smoke. In contrast, according to the World Health Organization, the smoke produced by fossil fuels and biomass causes the premature death of seven million people a year.
As a result, climatologist James Hanson and one of his colleagues calculated that nuclear power plants had already saved nearly two million lives that would have been lost due to air pollution. Thanks to its energy density, nuclear power plants require much less space than renewable energies. Even under the Californian sun, a solar park requires 450 times more surface area than a nuclear power plant to produce the same amount of energy.
0 x
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 13644
- Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
- Location: picardie
- x 1502
- Contact :
Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...
For 30 years the German obsession has been the disintegration of EDF...
1 x
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 13644
- Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
- Location: picardie
- x 1502
- Contact :
Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...
It is still impossible today to pronounce this sentence without getting hit by the visceral antinucs...nuclear is the cleanest energy because it does not emit CO2.
0 x
Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...
if it is true that the antinuclear are virulent, the remarks of Mrs. Bachelot were at the same time false and imprecise.
The nuclear industry emits CO2 and CO2 is not the only pollutant it emits.
The nuclear industry emits CO2 and CO2 is not the only pollutant it emits.
0 x
Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...
and the izmentrop which continues its pronuk propaganda.
Bachelot as incompetent in ecology as in health. The nuk produces little CO2 in use, but not in terms of extraction, transformation and storage and this without taking into account the hypothesis of accidents or disasters as already happened.
Getting out of the nuclear industry is therefore a vital necessity for humanity, as much for the military as for the civilian.
His majesty nullissime in all matters which perseveres to degrade the site.
Bachelot as incompetent in ecology as in health. The nuk produces little CO2 in use, but not in terms of extraction, transformation and storage and this without taking into account the hypothesis of accidents or disasters as already happened.
Getting out of the nuclear industry is therefore a vital necessity for humanity, as much for the military as for the civilian.
His majesty nullissime in all matters which perseveres to degrade the site.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 13644
- Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
- Location: picardie
- x 1502
- Contact :
Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...
It's still good this new feature of "X", it sets the record straight...
0 x
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 13644
- Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
- Location: picardie
- x 1502
- Contact :
Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...
She said "nuclear energy does not emit greenhouse gases": true and preciseRemundo wrote:if it is true that the antinuclear are virulent, the remarks of Mrs. Bachelot were at the same time false and imprecise.
The nuclear industry emits CO2 and CO2 is not the only pollutant it emits.
0 x
Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...
izmentrop
fake! it emits only a little CO2, on which the authorities fixate to evade everything else, but it emits obligatorily before to extract and obtain enriched uranium and afterwards, for thousands of years, to prevent killer leaks. Catastrophic final result!She said "nuclear energy does not emit greenhouse gases": true and precise
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 32 Replies
- 19449 views
-
Last message by dedeleco
View the latest post
16/10/11, 15:28A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
-
- 3 Replies
- 5660 views
-
Last message by tomy
View the latest post
25/05/06, 19:44A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
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 323 guests