Thorium: the future of nuclear power?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

the figure which comes up most often and which is validated by EDF is 12g CO2 / KW (taken from the IPCC). If EDF admits this figure, it is because it is higher. https://www.edf.fr/la-centrale-nucleair ... climatique

The ADEME value of “66 g CO2 / kWh” cannot therefore be used as a reference in the PPE report, and probably comes from an unfortunate shell*.

https://www.sfen.org/rgn/confusion-chif ... -nucleaire

* Shell: TYPOGR. Fault resulting from the substitution of one letter for another ...
This shows the seriousness of Izy's reference ...

[sicetaitsimple]

the figure which comes up most often and which is validated by EDF is 12g CO2 / KW (taken from the IPCC). If EDF admits this figure, it is because it is higher

I don't know exactly what the "validated by EDF" figure is, but actually 12g / kWh is, it seems to me, the IPCC reference value. Ben goes for 3 ass hair, it's just negligible. Besides, why to retain this figure would be to "admit" that it is in fact higher?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Moreover, why to retain this figure would be to "admit" that it is in fact higher?

No, EDF does not admit that it is superior, it retains this figure which "suits". In addition, the IPCC speaks of a range between 3,7 g and 110 g ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

GES.JPG (153.19 KiB) Viewed 2394 times

https://www.uncclearn.org/wp-content/up ... pf_web.pdf

[izentrop]

https://www.sfen.org/rgn/confusion-chif ... -nucleaire

* Shell: TYPOGR. Fault resulting from the substitution of one letter for another ...
This shows the seriousness of Izy's reference ...

This is not what the SFEN writes

ADEME is based on an old study by B. Sovacool which is not specific to France and which is not a study in the strict sense but a "meta-analysis", that is to say an analysis of international studies, and not specifically French, and above all, some of which are not LCA studies and unsuitable for our country.

It should be noted that the result of CO2 emissions for France is lower, due to the low carbon content of French electricity, which notably reduces the contribution of greenhouse gas emissions, in particular in the industrial stages of fuel cycle, such as uranium enrichment. This step also benefited from the major reduction (by a factor of nearly 50) in the energy consumed, by switching from gas diffusion technology to ultracentrifugation.

What has arranged well the government which wanted to put the ecologists in the pocket, it is well what counts in the short term, not?
We can see the relationship "ass and shirt" https://librairie.ademe.fr/cadic/5476/r ... 20_web.pdf

Anyway, the damage is done, let's not talk about it anymore ... We just have to hope that the molten salt or the fusion works, probably too late.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... maps-cop26

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

The ADEME value of “66 g CO2 / kWh” cannot therefore be used as a reference in the PPE report, and probably comes from an unfortunate mishap.

This is not what the SFEN writes

Yes, that's what they write in conclusion.

The proof .... JPG (89.44 KiB) Viewed 2381 times

https://www.sfen.org/rgn/confusion-chif ... -nucleaire

[ABC2019]

Anyway, the damage is done, let's not talk about it anymore ... We just have to hope that the molten salt or the fusion works, probably too late.

anyway, we don't care about the exact value of CO2 / kWh, first of all because the problems do not come from normal operation but from the side, waste management and risk of accident (it would be more meaningful to discuss of the risk of a major accident in France!), then because the real problem is not how much CO2 it produces, but if we know how to build them without fossils - and in any case we do not know how to do it, either for wind or nuclear.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... maps-cop26

typical of climate catastrophe iconography! a catastrophic tone but no description or data on the disaster in question: no costing of victims or costs, unlike the epidemic where we are overwhelmed with the number of deaths! we know that it is very serious but nobody knows why ... obviously the first 1 ° C did not prevent a demographic and economic growth unprecedented in the history of humanity!

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

And still a flood of bullshit (3/3 for today, sir 100% debilitated) .... I wouldn't give a damn about it, "who cares" and "beside" ...

[gfgh64]

well friends, there is sport, reading the 34 pages is really something!
if I understood you (correctly): roll: thorium could be the future of nuclear power if nuclear power had a future!
In my memories, the article that I read a very long time ago, and which is in the same spirit as the thema report, the reactor has been running in abandoned mode for 4 or 5 years
the americans wanted a nuclear air force one and not a bomber (at the beginning anyway)
in any case, 20 months later I don't see any big change, neither in ER or in RSF and other

[izentrop]

in any case, 20 months later I don't see any big change, neither in ER or in RSF and other

It is the Chinese who have taken up the torch
But fluoride salt and enriched uranium, the use of thorium is planned for a second time depending on feedback.