Nuclear and effect of Serre: GHG CO2 and EDF ...

[Christophe]

Because the RPE is not intermittent?

(for years it has mostly been an intermittent show!)

How many planned / actual megatonnes are we at for the flamanville EPR site?

[Ahmed]

How many planned / actual megatonnes of CO2 are there for the Flamanville EPR site?

... when you love, you don't count!

[Christophe]

Ah ah ah! Yes and at the time of the assessment, we will count especially "as we want" ...

Are there any studies on the CO2 balance of waste treatment?

[sen-no-sen]

Ah ah ah! Yes and at the time of the assessment, we will count especially "as we want" ...

Are there any studies on the CO2 balance of waste treatment?

We should see the results of the construction of the site Cigéo.
However, it remains highly probable that nuclear power has a carbon footprint that is much lower than renewable energy (wind power, solar photovoltaic power).
On average it takes 50 to 100 times more resources and about 100 times more ground surface to replace 1MW nuclear by equivalent in renewable energy.
Remember that the load factor of a wind turbine is around 20 to 30% (10% more for super-giants like Haliade X) and 15% for solar.
If to this we add the back up(gas station and / or STEP), it is really more very "green".
What is the energy balance of a gas pipeline? Of a gas field?

Another indicator should be created, based on the increase in'ecosystem entropy.
For a migrating bird the nuclear option is not necessarily the worst!

[Remundo]

the arguments of the occupied floor space are of no value. For the simple reason that we have immense surfaces on the ground which have no interest (neither urban, neither agricultural, nor forest), such as for example: roofs, deserts, oceans, rocky plateaus.

Concerning the mobilization of natural resources, it is true that renewable energies consume, but concerning photovoltaics for example, everything is 99% recyclable.

The same is not true of the reinforced concrete foundations of wind turbines. At the end of the life of a wind turbine, we would have to reuse the same base, and that should be technically possible as long as this is somewhat planned in the design (eg have a well where to bolt the new mast) .

A nuclear power station also mobilizes a lot of resources, and produces a lot of non-recyclable waste, some of which ... radioactive.

Because of this radioactive waste (whether it is fission products, or irradiated infrastructure), the CO2 balance of nuclear power is difficult to calculate, and even becomes an ancillary question ... Indeed, radioactivity represents such a danger on the long term that it makes forget the CO2 balance. And on the other hand, the nuclear industry is not decarbonized as it proclaims on all rooftops. The mining and chemical-industrial activities on which it depends are rather filthy in terms of CO2. Nuclear power plants can hardly be dismantled, whereas a photovoltaic field is easily ...

I refer you to the first page of this topic: energies-fossil-nuclear / nuclear-and-effect-of-greenhouse-ges-co2-and-EDF-t8139.html
dating from 2009, but very relevant and still relevant.

[sen-no-sen]

the arguments of the occupied floor space are of no value. For the simple reason that we have immense surfaces on the ground which have no interest (neither urban, neither agricultural, nor forest), such as for example: roofs, deserts, oceans, rocky plateaus.

This is true if we reason in absolute terms and from a purely human point of view, the story is a little different at the national and ecosystem level.In Germany, opposition to wind turbines is a real brake, especially Since 2018. A large number of projects are currently on hold due to citizen appeals, and France is on the same path. Solar should take over but it remains largely unproductive in our latitudes.
We should not dream too much about the outcome of all this, we are moving towards a nuclear / renewable energy / gas mix.
A 100% renewable energy world is only possible through a major transformation of our lifestyles, the problem is that there is no serious proposal on the subject, it would spell the end of economism.

[Ahmed]

To consider renewable energies as an alternative to fossil fuels (therefore including nuclear which is also extracted from the ground) is indeed a bad approach. This is for several reasons, the first being that the social context in which this phenomenon emerges is broadly the same as that of the immediately preceding energies. This is true in the facts, since these various energy sources add up instead of replacing each other ...
Another consideration to be taken into account in embodied energy is that the set of energetic devices, without distinction of origin, aims to feed an ever-growing multitude of electrical gadgets in a kind of self-justifying loop.

[sicetaitsimple]

To consider renewable energies as an alternative to fossil fuels (therefore including nuclear which is also extracted from the ground) is indeed a bad approach.

"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."