Fission, fusion and nuclear waste

[sen-no-sen]

One could even think, assuming perfect nuclear safety, that a massive deployment (if possible?) In the most technologically advanced countries would make the price of coal, and thus its use, even greater. attractive for countries which have not yet been able to satisfy their mimetic desire to live in the West ...

PS: you never consult your MP?

We can dismiss the hypothesis of a massive deployment of the nuclear sector (fission I hear).
Nuclear power is 4,8% of the world energy balance against 31% for oil 29% coal and 21% underground gas.
That the anti-nuclear reassure it is not the fission that will replace the fossils.
Nuclear is above all a state adventure specific to countries with a high industrial knowledge, and it is a sector which does not bring much except the waste that glows in the dark!
It is indeed good for this reason that the Germans chose to operate a transition without nuclear*, the sale of wind turbines is much profitable in the long term and the after-sales service less expensive!

But the essence of the problem is not there, it is rather sociological and that the anti-nuclear does not understand.
The concern is that in a society boosted by cheap energy, a price increase coupled with a decrease in supply risks bringing our country into chaos.
Because energy is also jobs, wages, pensions and everything that allows social cohesion which, let's say, is unfortunately essentially economic in the France of the 21th century ...
Doing without nuclear power at a time when oil and gas will reach peaks is not acceptable in view of the psychic configuration induced by almost 50 years of exponential growth.

* Remember that German nuclear power is 14% of electricity production against 75% for us, their "exit from nuclear" is therefore something difficult to compare with the French situation, and then coal helps!

Ps: my MP are empty!

[Ahmed]

I agree that it is necessary to make a distinction between what would be desirable in the long term and what is possible in an immediate not really easy to manage (because of previous choices and their consequences).
On the possible "massive deployment" of nuclear power, I had qualified a restriction which was probably too weak, but since it was within the framework of a simple hypothesis ...

PS: my message has effectively disappeared without leaving traces ...

[Exnihiloest]

...
We can dismiss the hypothesis of a massive deployment of the nuclear sector (fission I hear).
...

Nothing is less sure. If the big boom of electric vehicles on battery takes place, in the first winter come we will have black-out. If this is the case, the question of quickly making 2 or 3 conventional power stations to be able to power the vehicles, by the time the fusion arrives, will come back to the carpet.

[Exnihiloest]

And then, it is not a scoop and the quantities rejected are so diluted that the danger does not exist. Mr. Bonin talks about it in his video.

This is also the case with glyphosate, everyone agrees ...

That's right. Glyphosate is not an endocrine disruptor and it is not carcinogenic at normal doses of use, contrary to the lies of Marisol Touraine who was never able to provide, of course, the studies demonstrating it.
I of course present what the scientists as a whole say. Among politicians and activists of degrowth or anticapitalism, glyphosate is a capital sin. Too bad to dispose of a rather ecological product. After the banned chlorate of soda, we will only have sulfuric acid as in the early twentieth century. And who says product less effective, says higher doses.

[Leo Maximus]

... The real problem lies in our relationship to energy ....

I would rather say "our relationship with the mafia system that controls energy".

[Leo Maximus]

And then, it is not a scoop and the quantities rejected are so diluted that the danger does not exist. Mr. Bonin talks about it in his video.

This is also the case with glyphosate, everyone agrees ...

That's right. Glyphosate is not an endocrine disruptor and it is not carcinogenic at normal doses of use, contrary to the lies of Marisol Touraine who was never able to provide, of course, the studies demonstrating it.
I of course present what the scientists as a whole say. Among politicians and activists of degrowth or anticapitalism, glyphosate is a capital sin. Too bad to dispose of a rather ecological product. After the banned chlorate of soda, we will only have sulfuric acid as in the early twentieth century. And who says product less effective, says higher doses.

Herbicides are like a cigarette or chewing gum, it is used to be sold. Utility at the consumer level, I don't see too much ...

[Forhorse]

About Iter there is a series of very interesting videos to watch to understand the issues:

[sen-no-sen]

...
We can dismiss the hypothesis of a massive deployment of the nuclear sector (fission I hear).
...

Nothing is less sure. If the big boom of electric vehicles on battery takes place, in the first winter come we will have black-out. If this is the case, the question of quickly making 2 or 3 conventional power stations to be able to power the vehicles, by the time the fusion arrives, will come back to the carpet.

My remark concerned nuclear power on a global scale where it is difficult to seriously consider more 15% of nuclear energy in the energy mix.
In France it is very likely that an oil crisis causes a turnaround on the question of the atom, in particular in view of research carried out in the field of the 4 generation ... moreover it would appear that Enedis would seek to buy land around existing power stations for this purpose, to be confirmed (?)
It is true that with a few more reactors and a sufficient fleet of renewable energies we could be almost autonomous with regard to fossil fuels and those in 10 / 15 years.

[Exnihiloest]

...
Herbicides are like a cigarette or chewing gum, it is used to be sold. Utility at the consumer level, I don't see too much ...

This is among other things to avoid this kind of stuff: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_famines
A second reason is that nobody wants to weed or remove pests by hand anymore.
Another reason is that if everything is done by hand, the price will be such that no one can buy.

Share of food in the household budget:
2014: 20%
1960: 35%
In the second half of the 19th century, it could reach 70%.

Intensive agriculture does not only have drawbacks. Why did our ancestors who did not have pesticides create weedkillers ?! To be "sold" ?! Things are a little less simplistic than that. Don't think it's new. The need has always been felt. Weedkillers / fungicides ... over time:
- the sulfur (1000 years BC)
- arsenic in ancient rome
- arsenic, mercury and lead (15th century)
- copper and lime sulfate (XIXth)
- sulfuric acid at the start of 20ème
- DNOC and DDT later

As in the past, doing more effective, less polluting, with lower doses, should be an ecological concern. For the moment it is the industry which has insured. Banning glyphosate is a mistake when there is nothing better to put in place.
To give up these products without replacement is suicidal, unless one is ready to make people pay as much as possible, worse than for wind power (see the Australian experience). The way ecology is currently understood, or rather misunderstood, with its pollution abatement diktats at any cost even if it causes more misery than pollution, it is scary.

[izentrop]

Hi,
On glyphosate there is a topic from 43 pages gardening / the-Monsanto-Roundup-deadly-to-the-man-glyphosate-t7275-420.html # p346638

About Iter there is a series of very interesting videos to see to understand the issues

JP Petit has not been credible for a long time.
I prefer this docu

We progress:
China reaches 100 million degrees Celsius with nuclear fusion reactor https://siecledigital.fr/2018/11/15/la- ... nucleaire/