Reviewed by EDF engineer on misinformation tf1

[the middle]

How funny: are there none in Australia? Anyone have an idea of ​​pkoi?

On November 8, 2005, the Australian government arrested eighteen Islamic terrorists who wanted to detonate Australia's only nuclear power plant

So there is an Australian central; where there was...
Ha !, an answer:

Nuclear in Australia: 25 power plants planned The only Australian nuclear power plant is located near Sydney, the country's economic capital. After years of nuclear resistance, Australia plans to create 25 reactors by 2050 for its electricity production. It is the ecological argument and pragmatism that could prevail, faced with the fear of the atom, long maintained by French nuclear tests in Polynesia.
It is a real revolution that Australia plans to start for its energy production. Long hostile to nuclear power, the subject of violent controversies with France accused of contaminating the South Pacific with its tests in Polynesia, the country is now seriously considering acquiring nuclear power plants. This surprising decision follows an expert report last November, which recommends the construction of 25 nuclear reactors by 2050, which will produce a third of the country's electricity. Official objective: to reduce greenhouse gases.

Ecological and economic objectives

First rejected as a whole by public opinion, the idea seems more and more accepted by the Australians who see it as a solution to fight against global warming. In a few months, nuclear defenders have thus gone from 35% to 45%. The price argument undoubtedly also played a role, with the announcement of significant increases, inevitable in the long term, if the use of coal, particularly polluting, continued at the current rate. Ecological and economic issues have carried. They were, it is true, widely publicized by the government of John Howard, a fierce defender of the nuclear solution. In a country where fossil coal exists in abundance, coal-fired power plants have been, until now, the logical, unavoidable, but, it is true, polluting source of energy with their significant emissions of greenhouse gases ( GHGs).

Nuclear against drought

The ecological argument was the most determining in a country where the ozone hole, global warming and its direct consequence, drought, are very sensitive subjects. The completion of the 25 reactors would allow, according to the report of Australian specialists, the reduction of 8 to 18% of GHG. It remains to be seen where these nuclear reactors would be located. The only small nuclear station in Australia today, located near Sydney, has long been the subject of controversy. We even considered getting rid of it a few years ago. The opposition party, the Labor party, a fervent opponent of nuclear power, recalls that these power stations must be located near abundant water reserves, which means, in a continent three-quarters of which is semi-desert, close to cities and populated areas.
March 30, 2007, Patrick Cros

http://www.developpementdurablelejourna ... ?article89

[C moa]

superphenix, monumental failure, right?

Overall superphénix we could not see anything because hardly the experiments started that the greens one makes stop the works. For me this failure is above all political !!!

as ITER will be, right?

There too, no trial of intent we have not yet finished building that some say "it will not work" or "it is useless". I hope that ITER will be one of the means to get out of nuclear fission but in the meantime ...

anti-nuclear business, it's really a caricature anyway, I think they would not be happy with all the independent information work they do you think? finally ...

What ?? I have no right to provoke from time to time ??

for alternatives to petroleum and electricity, looking for laigret or other petroleum is nothing: action must be taken,

There I don't understand you. Doing research on alternative energies means allowing us to reduce our dependence on these energies and may one day be able to do without them.

I think I remember that you defend the use of the small individual wind turbine. If you don't have people who are looking for a way to make efficient and competitive systems, I don't see how it could develop. Not everyone is a geo finder or mechanic, welder, electrician ... capable of building their own installation.

You say "we must act". If for you doing this research is not acting, can you expand on what you mean by acting.

[jonule]

for the map of nuclear power plants in France, do not forget to superimpose the wind map on it, because we are all dependent on it, and only related to what we breathe:
http://www.meteo-world.com/france/vents.php

for Australia, this is what gives an expert report (who are they by the way?): while there is so much sun in Australia, the nuclear lobby through experts recommends that state to use nuclear power, to make it less hot in Australia? anything ... in the name of what, an ecological argument? a nuclear power plant, ecological? but say something finally

There too, no trial of intent we have not yet finished building that some say "it will not work" or "it is useless". I hope that ITER will be one of the means to get out of nuclear fission but in the meantime ...

It's been years, even 100 years, that the nuclear lobby claims to have a solution to radioactive waste, that nuclear power makes it possible to be independent of oil, and since all this time has been a lie, and you pretend to want to believe it?
this commitment engages only you, especially if you consider the technical and political choice put forward by Cuicui.

Wind turbines, they are available for sale online, and there is everything to make them yourself, or buy them from associations, just search.

take action: reduce your EDF contract, I am at 3kW because I have to, but in a few years it will be zero, and to cancel the subscription it will be enough to stop paying ;-)
act: use the alternatives, we have already discussed it but I put it back for the others: run on vegetable oil, used or not for diesel rather than petroleum, for the listed product, prefer wood, non-dangerous renewable energy which just bend down to pick it up (excellent for cholesterol) for the electric oven, mass stove, bike, etc etc ...

researchers who seek we find them, but researchers who find ... we seek them!

for the nuclear lobby, the foutage of mouth has only lasted too long, fortunately they have their little friends well placed and well greased at the Elysee, you just have to see how do sarkozy and fillon, real Nuclear sales representative, which doesn't even work wouahaha ouch my throat hurts

[C moa]

for Australia, this is what gives an expert report (who are they by the way?): while there is so much sun in Australia, the nuclear lobby through experts recommends that state to use nuclear power, to make it less hot in Australia? anything ... in the name of what, an ecological argument? a nuclear power plant, ecological? but say something finally

Well, it is clear that coal is not good for producing electricity. In a country like Australia, I think it would be more appropriate to develop solar power plants Thermal or wind turbines in the middle of the desert.

There too, no trial of intent we have not yet finished building that some say "it will not work" or "it is useless". I hope that ITER will be one of the means to get out of nuclear fission but in the meantime ...

It's been years, even 100 years, that the nuclear lobby claims to have a solution to radioactive waste, that nuclear power makes it possible to be independent of oil, and since all this time has been a lie, and you pretend to want to believe it?
this commitment engages only you, especially if you consider the technical and political choice put forward by Cuicui.

ITER is fusion therefore any waste is less important and above all is easier to master. It is the same principle as the fusion of which cuicui speaks but not with the same technology.

There is also this new discoverywhich suggests a lot of hope (but also a lot of questions).

researchers who seek we find them, but researchers who find ... we seek them!

It's not very nice for researchers but I find it funny (I hope that we will find with Laigret ).

[Remundo]

Jonule's quote is not from him (but that is not a reproach of course)

The crisp of History with a capital H is that it is its author Charles de Gaulle who made it famous !!


And what did Charles de Gaulle do? He initiated and vigorously led the policy of all nuclear (civil and military) pursued relentlessly by EDF and especially the CEA and which fiercely fights Jonule.

There, the circle is closed

[jonule]

like Cmoa and remundo, how weird ...

... and what did General Leclerc do? a tank which draws from the debris to depleted uranium, which comes directly from the waste of nuclear controls linked to our consumption of hair dryer and other toaster!
how pretty, the loop looped! all that for that as the other would say

I'm not fighting fiercely, I just see the failure of this prehistoric technology which continues to sink while nobody dares to say anything; but what are scientists doing? what happened to Dr Folamour? -)

ITER is fusion therefore any waste is less important and above all is easier to master.

you forget an important "detail", which means that your reasoning is wrong: the waste will be very radioactive and toxic, and there is ALWAYS no lasting solution, apart from the ostrich policy of bury everything in the ground, a good mentality for a so-called "advanced" technology? haha, haaa .. haaaaaaaaïe

[C moa]

ITER is fusion therefore any waste is less important and above all is easier to master.

you forget an important "detail", which means that your reasoning is wrong: the waste will be very radioactive and toxic, and there is ALWAYS no lasting solution, apart from the ostrich policy of bury everything in the ground, a good mentality for a so-called "advanced" technology? haha, haaa .. haaaaaaaaïe

And here it goes!

Why are you talking without knowing ??
Learn about the merger and you will see that your comments are totally wrong, to say the least.

In a very very simplified way, fusion is to take two very small atoms of the hydrogen kind (in fact one of its isotopes) and to join them to make a bigger one, ie a helium atom. During this merger, there is a significant release of energy which can be transformed into electricity.

Depending on the process (but not all) this helium atom may be radioactive, but in this case it is an alpha particle. This particle is very well known, easy to spot and just as easy to trap since a simple sheet of paper is enough to block it (nothing to do with gammas or neutrons). In addition, its half-life is quite short, so nothing to do with current particles either. With this (s) process (s), there is no long-lived waste !!!

[Christophe]

It's crazy this Jonule's habit of systematically diverting ALL subjects that speak near and far of electricity or EdF in debate (sterile?) pro VS anti nuke ...



Sorry but rather than opening it in a vacuum, I prefer to talk about concrete solutions (both habits and techniques) that prevent me from burning uranium ... at least that is within my reach!

[jonule]

Depending on the process (but not all) this helium atom may be radioactive, but in this case it is an alpha particle. This particle is very well known, easy to spot and just as easy to trap since a simple sheet of paper is enough to block it (nothing to do with gammas or neutrons). In addition, its half-life is quite short, so nothing to do with current particles either.

sorry i'm not telling anything, uranium and plutonium are alpha particles, i mean you are misinforming: we learn at school that a simple sheet of paper stops them, but when they are inhaled, they are carcinogenic and mutagenic, transmitted from generation to generation.

well tried to try to call me a sucker as usual, but it doesn't take with those who look beyond their nose

what do you mean by "fairly short half-life"?

and you're not talking about fuel preparation.

I'm not talking about fusion but the polluting activity of nuclear power plants, it's very different. I'm not talking about theory, but practice.

so am I talking nonsense? what do the others weigh then? I am willing to hear their opinions and keep quiet while waiting, but sorry when we hear "an alpha plutonium particle is stopped by a sheet of paper and is harmless" is hallucinating! and do we call ourselves an expert in the field? everyone gobbles?

we speak of "disinformation" as it is the title of the subject.

as for the remark of christophe it is null seeing that it was he who spoke first of the nuke on this post, but this time I copied / pasted

[Christophe]

as for the remark of christophe it is null seeing that it was he who spoke first of the nuke on this post, but this time I copied / pasted

Spoken yes ... not to be confused with troll and degenerate ...