In his presentation HERE, JM Jancovicci quantifies the energy expended by humans in slave equivalent.
This is not false, because if a man is able to supply 0.5 KW.h at the maximum mechanical energy in a day, 1 liter of gasoline contains 11 KW.h and restores around 4 mechanically if used in a thermal system. source: http://www.unige.ch/sebes/textes/1994/94Greppin.html
the average salary in France is around 80 € / working day or around 160 € / day with charges.
1L of gasoline provides around 4 KW.h of mechanical energy, 8 times what a man can produce;
THE PRICE OF LITER OF FUEL SHOULD THEREFORE BE 160 x 8 = 1280 € / L OUTSIDE THE MARGIN.
But it is the supply and demand market that governs prices on earth; and on a known fossil fuel stock, we are only at the beginning of the surge in fossil fuel prices
What is the real price of fossil energy?
- Capt_Maloche
- Moderator
- posts: 4559
- Registration: 29/07/06, 11:14
- Location: Ile-de-France
- x 42
What is the real price of fossil energy?
0 x
"Consumption is similar to a search consolation, a way to fill a growing existential void. With, the key, a lot of frustration and a little guilt, increasing the environmental awareness." (Gérard Mermet)
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
- Capt_Maloche
- Moderator
- posts: 4559
- Registration: 29/07/06, 11:14
- Location: Ile-de-France
- x 42
speaking of that too, what are our Uranium resources?
0 x
"Consumption is similar to a search consolation, a way to fill a growing existential void. With, the key, a lot of frustration and a little guilt, increasing the environmental awareness." (Gérard Mermet)
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79117
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10972
Maloche there you go a bit strong there ... you started to read the full please (in other words: is it dry? )?
Otherwise to broaden and complete the debate we just received this: https://www.econologie.com/shop/la-natur ... p-182.html
Here is a summary of the summary:
Otherwise to broaden and complete the debate we just received this: https://www.econologie.com/shop/la-natur ... p-182.html
Here is a summary of the summary:
This example shows how the economy is inseparable from nature and that, for this reason, the latter deserves to be considered as a capital to be made profitable, a saving whose interests alone should be taken for production.
(...)
Solutions exist. They ask to break with economic dogmas in order to be developed.
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
@Capt Maloche
The German Energy Watch Group estimated 1 years ago the known reserves at around 70 years of current production. but beware of the trap of this famous R / P ratio as for oil, demand will increase and the large deposits are surely all discovered.
there is another factor for uranium, it is that today, only 60% of the uranium consumed is extracted from mines, the remaining 40% comes from stocks extracted until the 80s and also very large stocks resulting from the dismantling of the military arsenal of the former USSR. Global contracts with Russia end in 2013 and Russia has already announced that it does not intend to extend them ...
by then, world production will have to increase by around 50%. today, australia and canada represent 44% of the extraction.
The German Energy Watch Group estimated 1 years ago the known reserves at around 70 years of current production. but beware of the trap of this famous R / P ratio as for oil, demand will increase and the large deposits are surely all discovered.
there is another factor for uranium, it is that today, only 60% of the uranium consumed is extracted from mines, the remaining 40% comes from stocks extracted until the 80s and also very large stocks resulting from the dismantling of the military arsenal of the former USSR. Global contracts with Russia end in 2013 and Russia has already announced that it does not intend to extend them ...
by then, world production will have to increase by around 50%. today, australia and canada represent 44% of the extraction.
0 x
you have to take into account the demand from china and india for their power stations: it was an excuse to drive up prices, the same childish game as for oil!
but what you should know:
> uranium ore is the only fissile ore on earth.
> during enrichment, this makes depleted uranium on the one hand, and the "primary" fuel on the other.
> during the nuclear reaction in a reactor, this "produces" plutonium (no, it is not an ore)
> this plutonium is mixed with depleted uranium (DU) to make "MOX", by La Hague (7% plutonium the remainder UA), a new fuel; it is manufactured at La Hague, 2nd nuclear site in the world after Tricastin, an enrichment site.
it is obvious that plutonium was created from the ground up artificially by the hand of the nuclear man, and is highly radioactive and dangerous, thousands of times + than uranium.
conclusion: even if the uranium price rises, it is with plutonium that the power stations will work, it is the goal of the EPRs that they want to build (instead of wind turbines): to make even more profit + the climb that 'They will do with the courses ... they call it economic, fear them, because we know how much they increase prices at EDF-AREVA ...
but what you should know:
> uranium ore is the only fissile ore on earth.
> during enrichment, this makes depleted uranium on the one hand, and the "primary" fuel on the other.
> during the nuclear reaction in a reactor, this "produces" plutonium (no, it is not an ore)
> this plutonium is mixed with depleted uranium (DU) to make "MOX", by La Hague (7% plutonium the remainder UA), a new fuel; it is manufactured at La Hague, 2nd nuclear site in the world after Tricastin, an enrichment site.
it is obvious that plutonium was created from the ground up artificially by the hand of the nuclear man, and is highly radioactive and dangerous, thousands of times + than uranium.
conclusion: even if the uranium price rises, it is with plutonium that the power stations will work, it is the goal of the EPRs that they want to build (instead of wind turbines): to make even more profit + the climb that 'They will do with the courses ... they call it economic, fear them, because we know how much they increase prices at EDF-AREVA ...
0 x
interesting remarks from active citizens (or extremist terrorist according to some, it might be necessary to conduct a survey):
> Christophe: the last sentence and the passage in green are particularly for you: you see that they know they are proposing something!
in addition, in view of all the serious bodies to which they are attached (chemicals, climate, clean car etc ...): we can legitimately take their last sentence as a basis for calculation, what do you think?
2nd EPR in France: a stupid decision that disqualifies Nicolas Sarkozy on energy and climate issues
July 03, 2008
Paris, France - Greenpeace condemns the announcement made today by the President of the Republic who, on a visit to Le Creusot, announced the construction of a second EPR nuclear reactor on French territory. “This decision is absurd and stupid. This is a major fault in terms of energy, economics, industry and the environment, says Yannick Jadot, campaign manager for Greenpeace France. France is a "nuclear republic", like others are banana republics. The French Presidency of Europe has barely begun, the nuclear lobby is once again in charge and the French President, completely disqualified. "
A totally useless reactor. The EPR reactor under construction at Flamanville was not already justified in terms of energy needs, France being in strong nuclear overcapacity. To justify this first EPR, the industry and the authorities have repeatedly said that a prototype was to be tested by 2015, before deciding on a possible replacement of the existing fleet from 2020. It is still the position defended by EDF today, which repeats not seeing the usefulness of building new nuclear units before 2020. "This decision to build a second EPR falls from the sky without any energy justification," said Frédéric Marillier, in charge of the Energy campaign at Greenpeace France.
A dangerous reactor. The EPR is the most powerful of the reactors in the world (1 MW), it will concentrate more radioactivity than these predecessors. In addition, the use of a specific plutonium-based fuel (Mox) will increase the radioactivity and the toxicity of any releases. And concerning waste, it will certainly be a little less numerous, but more radioactive.
An overpriced reactor that we don't know how to build The only two EPRs that Areva is currently trying to build are facing serious difficulties. The Finnish project, started in 2005, shows an overall budget overrun of 1,3 to 2,2 billion euros (for an initial price of 3,3 billion) and will only be finished with at least two years of delay ( 2011 and not 2009). As for the Flamanville EPR (Manche), it has already been delayed, work having been stopped for more than a month on the orders of the Nuclear Safety Authority, following numerous anomalies and faults.
There is a much better solution: energy efficiency. Why invest in nuclear power, when there are more efficient, more economical, safer and faster solutions? Insulate housing, limit consumption of cars, encourage the purchase of efficient products, etc. : such measures to control consumption meet the challenges of climate change, energy security and purchasing power of the French. Just a simple example, which the government refuses to put in place - when it is one of the flagship measures of the Grenelle of the environment: the ban on incandescent bulbs by 2010. Such a This measure would allow France to save an amount of electricity equivalent to what the EPR reactor should produce.
"Faced with soaring energy prices linked to oil and in a context of budgetary crisis, how can we accept that the President of the Republic gives a gift of more than 3 billion euros to Areva instead of investing in French service, wonders Yannick Jadot. We do not even know how much an EPR costs, sold for more than 3 billion euros but whose price is doubling in Finland. On the other hand, we know that one euro invested in efficiency saves seven times more energy than one euro invested in nuclear power. "
> Christophe: the last sentence and the passage in green are particularly for you: you see that they know they are proposing something!
in addition, in view of all the serious bodies to which they are attached (chemicals, climate, clean car etc ...): we can legitimately take their last sentence as a basis for calculation, what do you think?
0 x
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 2 Replies
- 4283 views
-
Last message by winget
View the latest post
08/03/22, 08:42A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
-
- 8 Replies
- 3536 views
-
Last message by izentrop
View the latest post
17/11/19, 12:55A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
-
- 144 Replies
- 45142 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
05/06/21, 23:29A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
-
- 0 Replies
- 2973 views
-
Last message by charrow31
View the latest post
12/09/15, 05:22A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
-
- 0 Replies
- 2736 views
-
Last message by jonule
View the latest post
15/10/08, 11:00A 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 305 guests