Nuclear power continues in the world

[Christophe]

Yeah except:

IRSN_serie_fiches_tirs_08-2015.pdf

(3.54 million) Downloaded times 152

Fission products: under the impact of a neutron, the nucleus of the atom of Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239

There is no Uranium 235 in an H-bomb... https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombe_H

Screenshot 2022-03-21 at 17-31-25 Bombe H - Wikipedia.png (39.78 KiB) Viewed 1514 times

A-bombs using U235 no longer exist (at least not in Russia...) and this table would only be valid for Hiroshima!

Was I wrong or not?

“Clean” H-bomb
The military speak of a “clean” H-bomb when less than 50% of its total energy comes from the fission reaction. Indeed, fusion alone does not directly produce any radioactive compound. The radioactive fallout from a "clean" H-bomb would therefore a priori be less significant than that of a conventional A-bomb of the same power, while the other effects remain just as devastating. The difference comes from the design of the fusion stage. If the pad is uranium, then it will split, releasing half the power of the bomb, but causing 90% of the radioactive fallout. By replacing it with a pad made of another heavy but non-fissionable metal, such as lead, the bomb will lose half its power, but with much lower fallout.

Good nuclear physicist it's a job and it's not mine..

ps: it confirms that you got it wrong in your previous reasoning...

[Christophe]

Iodine does not even appear in this graph:

Screenshot 2022-03-21 at 17-40-36 Fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests in France - IRSN_serie_fiches_tirs_08-2015.pdf.png (206.54 KiB) Consulted 1501 times

But go ahead and continue to defend the dishonesty of the 1st jester team...

[Christophe]

And then we find: no more than 1 Bq per L of milk since 1965...while we have a natural radioactivity in Alsace of 40 Bq/m000...

Really effective so the iodine tablets...

Well ok okay you're going to tell us that if it farts it's closer than the foreign tests...yes!

But hey if it farts I think your cancer in 10 years we don't give a damn!!

Screenshot 2022-03-21 at 17-44-31 Fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests in France - IRSN_serie_fiches_tirs_08-2015.pdf.png (275.53 KiB) Consulted 1497 times

Too bad Chernobyl is missing...

[sicetaitsimple]

ps: it confirms that you got it wrong in your previous reasoning...

Well see, the fission of Pu does not produce iodine131.....
You are right....

[Christophe]

…you are incorrigible…

[Christophe]

89 of the 97 US reactors in operation have already had their licenses extended to 60 years and 6 of them have applied for an additional extension for 80 years. Operation under ASN supervision beyond Fessenheim's 42 years was possible.



80 years instead of the 20, 30 or 40 years of the initial design is still pushing the envelope a little far, isn't it?

[izentrop]

If the 306s were maintained like nuclear power plants, they could travel several million miles.

[Exnihiloest]

89 of the 97 US reactors in operation have already had their licenses extended to 60 years and 6 of them have applied for an additional extension for 80 years. Operation under ASN supervision beyond Fessenheim's 42 years was possible.
...

The fault with ecologists if one of them farts. By dint of having banged on nuclear power and having lobbied for inefficient renewables, there has been little or no investment in nuclear power, and even cuts. And now that everyone understands, even some of the ecologists, it's saying that it's big, that nuclear power is the only credible alternative to coal and oil, we find ourselves with old power stations, and in insufficient numbers.

[phil59]

Of the 54 or 56 reactors, I don't know anymore, there were more than 10 shut down in February-March, it seems to me, and yet we had enough juice.

Only that nuclear power is not possible, we will always need gas, fuel oil, coal, for energy peaks, things that can ramp up very quickly.

Of course gas is better for others.
I don't think 100% nuclear is possible.

We could be against wind turbines, I can still understand, given the funding benefiting more non-French groups, some find it of interest, given the share of subsidy, which does not return the "France" wallet.

From there to remove them...

Wind turbines are a solution for hydrogen for transport, with the surplus of production, in my opinion.

With the covid, we fell behind on the maintenance of the reactors.

For me, you don't need excessive nuc, but the bare minimum, but you definitely need it, and keep it in good condition.

I remain convinced that the EV can also be a solution to oil. I don't believe too much for the particular hydrogen vehicle.

A part can stay in oil, it's not necessarily embarrassing, the whole thing is to find a good balance, between profit, and .... profit, unfortunately. Do not destroy old VTs, which are still good, even a little polluting, but favor the VE, for the new, and practically nothing in VT...

Is there any study that can say that there is as much central nuc, and as much gas, etc? (for spades).

The wind, there will be more and more, on the other hand, the good sun for the solar panels, will perhaps no longer be so important ....

[Christophe]

I am posting here these few pages of energy and nuclear analyzes sent to me by a visitor.

Title: The Apogee of Nuclear

The heyday of nuclear power.pdf

(72.3 KB) Downloaded times 115

Intro and conclusion:

The heyday of nuclear power is already a thing of the past...

Omnipresent from the middle of the 80th century, the scientific, military and energy applications of the principles of nuclear energy gradually imposed themselves to culminate in the XNUMXs. However, for the past thirty years, many processes based on totally different principles have replaced most of these applications of nuclear energy, which had nevertheless been presented as indispensable and eternal.

It is only in the military fields and that of the production of electrical energy that the possibility of the renewal of the fleets of generators arises, whereas everywhere renewable energies are essential because of their lower cost. Their “intermittency”, long presented as prohibitive, is about to be overcome.

(...)

General conclusion

Nuclear power is always very present in the debates and controversies offered by the news. The discovery of natural radioactivity, uranium, thorium and then artificial radioactivity allowed many scientific and industrial uses in the XNUMXth century, with however technical and financial disadvantages, and in particular the management of radioactive waste in the very long term. (several millennia or even millions of years).

Most of these uses have now been superseded. It is only in the fields of strategic armaments and the production of electrical energy that they continue to play a singular role. Renewable energies, whose full potential is not yet perceived, already play the main role. The quantitative potential of renewables does not seem to have any limits. After a long phase of maturation between the 1st oil shock of 1973 and the 1st Energy-Climate Plan for Europe in 1998, the deployment began in Europe and the USA before spreading throughout the world during the 2010 decade.

Unlike most current publications, which promote the systematic electrification of uses and therefore the eradication of most uses of carbon energies, this document aims to show that it would be wise to keep some of them, thanks to to the unknown possibility of recycling the carbon already contained in the atmosphere, which is non-fossil since there is no increase in the total quantity of carbon dioxide they have incomparable capacities to store solar energy , more than superabundant on the surface of the Earth. Moreover, the same solutions currently under development (capture of atmospheric CO2, geological storage) are envisaged for future "negative emissions", essential in future centuries to reduce the quantity of CO2 present in the atmosphere to previous levels.

A new era of energies is emerging