Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?

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
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15989
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5187

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by Remundo » 11/11/21, 20:16

well you know, the Icelanders arrived on their island without oil ... and from afar.
0 x
Image
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by ABC2019 » 11/11/21, 21:17

Remundo wrote:well you know, the Icelanders arrived on their island without oil ... and from afar.

it is clear, if we want to live like the Vikings, there is no more problem.

In the XNUMXth century, the Icelanders were regarded by the Danes as whole rednecks barely good at fishing for cod with their sailing boats, and their daily life was no different from that of the Middle Ages.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79111
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by Christophe » 11/11/21, 21:19

ABC2019 wrote:their daily life was no different from that of the Middle Ages.


Where do you think the current IQ is compared to the Middle Ages?
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by sen-no-sen » 11/11/21, 21:55

Remundo wrote:
(...) it would take a huge technological breakthrough, leading us to aneutronic fusion (for example Bore Hydrogen) to manage to exploit something.
(...) nevertheless it is a hypothetical mirage that will sparkle in at least 100 years. Until then, something else must be done.
Thermonuclear fusion energy comes to us naturally and free of charge from the Sun. Just pick it ...


Evolution (in the broadest sense) is carried out around a path that is both slow and progressive, punctuated by disruptions via quantitative and qualitative leaps.
The mastery of fusion is in no way a mirage, since it is part of technological determinism, it is just a question of time (30 to 60 years max). It will be the same in physics, a new theory unifying quantum physics and RG should open the door to new knowledge for the moment still unthinkable.
The danger in all of this is: are we ready? : roll:
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by humus » 12/11/21, 08:07

ABC2019 wrote:
GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:
ABC2019 wrote: (it is precisely by logging that Iceland made its forest disappear)

Mostly the Vikings, since the 50s, they reforest ... you can go back to playing the goose game.

Now that they have geothermal energy for heating and importing oil for transportation, they can afford it. But without oil, they wouldn't go far ...

Are you not tired of repeating the same silliness over and over again? : roll:
to use your expression, "it's painful!" : Evil:

With all the electricity they have whenever they want they switch their vehicles to hydrogen or electric.
Today the oil is there, available and therefore cheap the generalized need electric or hydrogen vehicles do not yet exist, that's all.
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by ABC2019 » 12/11/21, 08:34

humus wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:
GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:Mostly the Vikings, since the 50s, they reforest ... you can go back to playing the goose game.

Now that they have geothermal energy for heating and importing oil for transportation, they can afford it. But without oil, they wouldn't go far ...

Are you not tired of repeating the same silliness over and over again? : roll:
to use your expression, "it's painful!" : Evil:

With all the electricity they have whenever they want they switch their vehicles to hydrogen or electric.


Oh yes? "when they want", really?

and what explains while they still do not want, when hydrogen and electricity would be produced in abundance and locally without any problem, while oil must be imported by ships at great expense and plunges them in an energy dependence that they would be too happy to do without?

Why did they make the replacement for heating or power generation, but not for transportation? what is the logic?
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by humus » 12/11/21, 08:51

ABC2019 wrote:
humus wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:Now that they have geothermal energy for heating and importing oil for transportation, they can afford it. But without oil, they wouldn't go far ...

Are you not tired of repeating the same silliness over and over again? : roll:
to use your expression, "it's painful!" : Evil:

With all the electricity they have whenever they want they switch their vehicles to hydrogen or electric.


Oh yes? "when they want", really?

and what explains while they still do not want, when hydrogen and electricity would be produced in abundance and locally without any problem, while oil must be imported by ships at great expense and plunges them in an energy dependence that they would be too happy to do without?

Why did they make the replacement for heating or power generation, but not for transportation? what is the logic?

Eternally painful : roll: . Run your few neurons together and you'll have answers.
: Arrow: It's just a logic of financial profitability.

Would you question the logic of financial profitability and consequently capitalism, to move towards a logic of planned sustainability?
So much progress during our vacation ! : Lol:

We are not revolting enough.
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by ABC2019 » 12/11/21, 09:07

humus wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:
humus wrote:Are you not tired of repeating the same silliness over and over again? : roll:
to use your expression, "it's painful!" : Evil:

With all the electricity they have whenever they want they switch their vehicles to hydrogen or electric.


Oh yes? "when they want", really?

and what explains while they still do not want, when hydrogen and electricity would be produced in abundance and locally without any problem, while oil must be imported by ships at great expense and plunges them in an energy dependence that they would be too happy to do without?

Why did they make the replacement for heating or power generation, but not for transportation? what is the logic?

Eternally painful : roll: . Run your few neurons together and you'll have answers.
: Arrow: It's just a logic of financial profitability.

Would you question the logic of financial profitability and consequently capitalism, to move towards a logic of planned sustainability?
So much progress during our vacation ! : Lol:

We are not revolting enough.


ah but I totally agree with you, it's "just" a question of financial profitability, as you say. I do not even see what OTHER problem than financial one could arise, since indeed, technically, the hydrogen engines we know how to do (this is what equips the Ariane rockets for example).

So you agree that replacing oil for transport financially is not the same as replacing it for electricity production?

It comes down to what I was saying: just because you have plenty of electricity, even cheap, doesn't mean you have solved all the problems.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by humus » 12/11/21, 09:24

ABC2019 wrote:
It comes down to what I was saying: just because you have plenty of electricity, even cheap, doesn't mean you have solved all the problems.

Potentially so.
Financial logic is too inconstant, it suffices for oil to be more expensive, less available, or even rationed to fight against the RCA and financial logic will change direction, it's a weather vane.
It would be more rational to base our decisions on something other than the wind (financial profitability) but rather on physical realities, especially that today, we know, we know the physical realities.


We do not revolt enough.
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by ABC2019 » 12/11/21, 09:43

humus wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:
It comes down to what I was saying: just because you have plenty of electricity, even cheap, doesn't mean you have solved all the problems.

Potentially so.
Financial logic is too inconstant, it suffices for oil to be more expensive, less available, or even rationed to fight against the RCA and financial logic will change direction, it's a weather vane.

I do not see which OTHER logic will apply however.

Expensive, that means you have to pay more people to produce a kWh (because the cost ultimately is just wages and taxes). If you set up an energy production system, you will have to pay them anyway, and therefore make the consumer pay, and therefore he gets poorer. Do you have another solution?

Note that the financial cost is just a translation of the physical cost: it is more expensive, because you simply have to use more people to work to produce a kWh, for reasons related to physics. Bar point.

Unless you reduce your workers to slavery, but which amounts to paying them just in kind with the accommodation and food you give them, but which only concentrates poverty on the slaves - on average on the population, the problem remains the same.

As for your argument, it has a major problem: it is not because oil will become expensive that other energies will become profitable, because their cost ALSO depends on the cost of energy, and can increase just as much - it is currently calculated precisely with fossils which are still quite cheap (but less and less).

What is quite funny is that you give a lot of references that say that the decrease is inevitable, but there you develop an argument saying that it could be completely avoidable and that replacing the fossils is not a problem. : Shock: You would have to make up your mind, comrade!
1 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)

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 220 guests