ITER

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 ...
ptrem
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 12
Registration: 05/11/07, 22:55
Location: var

ITER




by ptrem » 06/11/07, 00:01

when the volume of the plasma chamber reaches 800 meters / cubic, the energy produced will be multiplied by ten compared to the energy supplied; thanks to the fusion of tritium and deuterium
The problem is to contain this volume of plasma.
That must be possible, because the 7 great powers which will invest 30 billion dollars in the project in progress, have measured the feasibility.
The waste due to neutrons will have a duration of one hundred years; afterwards they will be harmless.
A CEA president announced on TF1 that the electricity produced will be used to make hydrogen. (after oil)
In twenty or thirty years.
Notice to future engineers; the key words are: knowing how to contain plasma, and hydrogen; this has not yet been done.
The other areas are practically achieved.
Best regards, maybe soon.
0 x
we know how to produce plasma; the problem is to make the box to contain it.
the expert engineers to make this box have 100% chances of being hired to cadarache.
According to a senior CEA leader, the energy of the future is hydrogen produced with electricity. But the problem is still to contain it.
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 04/09/08, 14:25

big fiasco for ITER, while waiting for the inevitable radioactive explosion and the undisclosed leaks, its infeasible construction steals all of it under renewable energies, and those of the French taxpayer ...

and yes Christophe, you see when you say that it is nuclear that pays for wind turbines, you should know that it is we who pay for nuclear, even for fiascos abroad ... 80% of the capital is held by the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), a public structure.


Finnish EPR: the French taxpayer will pay!

France - Greenpeace is dismayed to see France's stubbornness in building one - or even two - EPRs when the press suddenly reveals that the Flamanville, France construction site has already been 9 months behind schedule * and that Areva records a 50% increase in the invoice for the site of the other EPR in Finland.

"For months we have been saying that the budget for the Finnish project has exploded, recalls Yannick Rousselet, of Greenpeace France. To win as many markets as possible, Areva breaks prices and promises untenable deadlines. Result: in Finland, the site was two years behind schedule and the overall cost of the project went from 3 to 4,5 billion euros. That of Flamanville takes the same path. We wanted to make these two sites a showcase for French nuclear? It succeeded : we can see how incapable Areva is of building the EPR !

"Olkiluoto is the crystal ball in which we can read the troubles that await us in Flamanville," says Yannick Rousselet. Stop the fees while there is still time! Greenpeace estimates that at a time of slowing growth, France certainly has better things to do than gobble up at least three billion euros - certainly much more! - in a useless, poorly controlled and risky project. Greenpeace calls on the government to stop the EPR program to invest French money in the development of renewables and energy efficiency, which meet the challenges of combating climate change, energy independence and power 'purchase.
»


concrete is already cracking:
http://www.greenpeace.org/france/news/e ... st-le-cont


the road is straight ...
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 04/09/08, 15:02

Hi Ptrem ...

I'm going to please Jonule, I'm going to say that ITER hides everything from us : Cheesy:

Finally, let's clarify a little ... a few affirmations that no one can testify by remaining in good faith ...

ITER is neither "a social project", nor an "energy project"

ITER is above all an experimental reactor intended to simulate the most accessible, but not the cleanest, thermonuclear fusions.

ITER is not able to produce more energy than it consumes because of the intense cooling of its irreparable plasma because of the very design of the machine.

ITER probably generates as much, if not more, radioactive waste than a good old fission plant without overgeneration. Reduced to the kWh produced, the figure must even be catastrophic (This is due to the fast neutron nature of the fusion used)

ITER costs 15 Billion Euros, with this amount in "starting capital", we could gradually provide all of Europe with solar electric energy just with the resulting oil savings. We could also do less ambitious things like generalizinghybridization passenger cars. Here too, the oil bill would be divided by 2 (generating at least 10 billion euros / year in France)

I would summarize in one sentence:

ITER is not what we believe, however, it is perfectly justified, but not in the areas where it is glorified ...

Everyone will deduce what they want : Idea:
0 x
Image
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 04/09/08, 15:40

Remundo wrote:ITER is above all an experimental reactor intended to simulate the most accessible, but not the cleanest, thermonuclear fusions.

no but you are not going to tell me that you still believe in that? : Lol:

it’s just one more toy that takes all budgets (which will cause a scandal in several years) to consume MOX and produce plutonium again and again, filthy nuclear waste that is spread slowly but surely and sustainably in the environment, when it is not sold to make weapons ..

if you want to refresh your memory on plutonium, a lethal element created by the nuclear industry, I advise you to read this:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/nucleaire- ... t5658.html
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 04/09/08, 16:12

Thanks for the link Jonule,

However, MOX is not a thermonuclear fusion fuel (therefore not for ITER), but a recycling channel for the plutonium produced by fission power plants, in order to constitute a new fuel for fission power plants.

Little link for neophytes:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX
0 x
Image
Rulian
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 686
Registration: 02/02/04, 19:46
Location: Caen




by Rulian » 05/09/08, 00:43

I completely agree with Jonule! From A to Z.
0 x
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 05/09/08, 10:32

??
where did you read fission remundo? it is not even mentioned in your wiki link?

what you need to know is that MOX is very difficult, polluting and expensive to produce, and only concerns a LITTLE% of the sector, which prides itself on this pretext for talking about recycling ...

and I insist: MOX is well used in French nuclear power plants, among others.

The use of MOX was only planned in the RNRs. Current PWRs are not designed for this type of fuel. This explains the complexity of the assemblies and the fact that the loading is limited to 30% of the core. It was possible to design other PWR reactors suitable for this type of fuel. It is also possible to directly design PWRs burning more plutonium and creating less actinides. We can, then, dispense with retreat or moxer.

RNR: fast neutron reactors
It was only after the failure of RNR self-sufficiency, that is to say the idea that over-generation would be sufficient to allow self-supply of an expanding fleet, that they were entrusted with spot of supply of Pu of the rapids.
They are therefore not designed to make the best use of Pu and produce less minor actinides.
The treatment of waste and its landfill was not envisaged. Nor was it envisaged that the RNR would be a failure. The REP sector was purchased in the USA (Westinghouse) and we have francized it with the latest 1 MWé not designed for MOX !!


all about MOX, MELOX, the dictatc of nuclear fuel, I also advise for neophytes:
http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucl ... r_mox.html
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 05/09/08, 12:16

Jonule, you tell nonsense from time to time ...

MOX is radically incompatible with thermonuclear fusion.

MOX is widely used worldwide, and in particular in France, in FISSION power plants. It is made TO FISSION.

Its interest is questionable, as with any technology, the situation is not settled.

However, it has 2 advantages: recycling civil or military plutonium, and limiting the effects of criticality (ie spontaneous and uncontrolled nuclear explosion of fuel blocks).

MOX is a kind of DIY breeder; very schematically, what RNRs should do in situ is done in Areva's reprocessing plants in several complex and costly steps.

Two interesting links that do not tell too many salads ...

http://www.areva-nc.fr/scripts/areva-nc ... P=433&L=FR

http://www.asn.fr/sections/rubriquespri ... stible-mox

However, the nuclear industry is clearly polluting and poses major geopolitical problems linked to the proliferation of the atomic weapon; Iran is a recent and symbolic example ...

But for lack of anything better, France has only that to significantly support its electricity independently of gas and oil ... Other renewable sectors could be developed to replace it, of course ... : Idea:
0 x
Image
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 05/09/08, 14:54

well Remundo,
MOX, resulting from a polluting transformation of the residue from nuclear reactions, is made for a certain generation of power plant, that is.

However, AREVA does not know how to build this damn power plant which will use plutonium, formerly a nuclear reaction residue from other reactors, 200.000 times more toxic and radioactive than uranium.

Remundo "It still has 2 advantages: recycling of civilian or military plutonium, and limitation of criticality effects (ie spontaneous and uncontrolled nuclear explosion of fuel blocks). [/ Quote]
it's not recycling, that's an ecological term, but it's product transformation, in all cases plutonium is used, what do you think? for weapons (maintaining military deterrence, and selling abroad) and for MOX.

sorry for the AREVA links but considering how they lied for Tricastin I never believed them anyway.

[quote = "Remundo wrote:
But for lack of anything better, France has only that to significantly support its electricity independently of gas and oil ...

are you kidding, uranium is imported from foreign countries (niger) so zero independence ...
for the wasted NRJ renovuelables, we can not miss it is too late! it was before we had to mobilize : Evil:
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 05/09/08, 15:39

Jonule wrote:
Remundo wrote:But for lack of anything better, France has only that to significantly support its electricity independently of gas and oil ...

are you kidding, uranium is imported from foreign countries (niger) so zero independence ...
for the wasted NRJ renovuelables, we can not miss it is too late! it was before we had to mobilize : Evil:


It is indeed a good remark. Structurally, uranium fuel is just as fossil and exhaustible as petroleum.

Three main differences, however:
- France has more influence in Africa than it has in the Middle East and in Russia (no offense to our diplomacy which thinks it can influence and make decisions everywhere) and the great military powers are currently occupied to appropriate the gas and oil reserves more than those of the uranium ore.
- tensions on uranium ore are still low, peak-uranium is for at least 100 years
- uranium has multiple direct outlets for military applications.

This means that France is fully playing the "radioactive card". But what are we going to leave to future generations? Mountains of garbage and bomblets? Forever polluted groundwater and soil?

What is heartbreaking, it is as you say that we could have done otherwise ... It is never too late to go in the right direction, but what is done in terms of releases of radioactive elements is irreversible. .. :?
0 x
Image

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

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 289 guests