By the way ... what is Nuclear exactly?

[moinsdewatt]

There are some values ​​on the internet, of the order of 300 to 400 degrees in the primary circuit, ie the circuit whose water will directly recover the heat produced by the nuclear reaction, (See the EDF website) ... while the nuclear reaction is capable of producing some 15 000 000 of degrees Celsius. (We "play" with fifteen million degrees to use 300! ).

No, there is nowhere 15 000 000 of ° C in a fission reactor.

You have not understood anything about what happens in a fission reactor. Review Wikipedia.

[Christophe]

it's quickly found.



source: https://origo.energy/2017/05/02/quel-es ... uvelables/

Life found but very phony ..

It's big big anything these numbers ...

The analysis of the nuclear life cycle is catastrophic in terms of Co2 ... (construction, extraction, treatment, dismantling ... produce a lot of co2)

Why does coal acv add 600 gr and nuclear than 6?

It stinks intellectual dishonesty these figures ...

[sicetaitsimple]

Life found but very phony ..

It's big big anything these numbers ...
The analysis of the nuclear life cycle is catastrophic in terms of Co2 ... (construction, extraction, treatment, dismantling ... produce a lot of co2)

I actually have a little trouble understanding ....

1. We talk about emissions per kWh, but it is obviously by thermal kWh, whereas the reader could understand kWh electric, since one compares with PV, the éoiien or even of nuclear which in general rule produce only electricity (with very few exceptions in the case of nuclear power, and again, exception to find except perhaps in some states of the former USSR?

2. if we speak of thermal MWh, in direct emissions, the figures defy the chemistry! Natural gas (per thermal kWh) produces less CO2 than fuel that produces less than coal, it is just a problem of carbon / hydrogen ratio.


That said, the statement "The analysis of the nuclear life cycle is catastrophic in terms of Co2 ... (construction, extraction, treatment, dismantling ... produce a lot of co2)" is about as zero! What is a lot?

[sicetaitsimple]

To fix the ideas, if one speaks about production of electricity, the direct emissions of CO2 are:

-for coal, about 800g / kWh for the most modern plants
-for gas, about 350g / kWh there also for the most modern plants.
-For fuel oil, it no longer exists in modern "steam" power plants, but for modern diesel groups it must be around 650 / 700g / kWh.

[Christophe]

What is a lot?

To start it's more than zero!

Then I posted above a link to studies on the co2 and nuclear ... (but it seems to me that they do not take into account the dismantling ...)

To summarize: the nuclear produces much co2 but it is undoubtedly its least worrying waste ...

If it's thermal this comparative table is even more deceiving since wind, solar and hydro is electricity ... so we compare cabbages and carrots ...

So I persist and sign: quickly found, quickly trash ...

ps: thank you for the "null" ...

[Did67]

I guess guessed what "ACV" is. But késako ???

[I'm surprised for the gas!]

[Ahmed]

LCA = Life Cycle Analysis; takes into account gray energy and not just direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Indeed, the nuclear figure is clearly grossly underestimated.

[Christophe]

Then I posted above a link to studies on the co2 and nuclear ... (but it seems to me that they do not take into account the dismantling ...)

To summarize: the nuclear produces much co2 but it is undoubtedly its least worrying waste ...

REVOICI these figures energies-fossil-nuclear / nuclear-and-effect-of-greenhouse-ges-co2-and-EDF-t8139.html

This comes from ADEME:

Indeed, the nuclear figure is clearly grossly underestimated.

Those of hydraulics also AMHA when we know the number of m3 concrete it takes to build a dam ... their life is certainly important (more than a nuclear power plant) but the maintenance must also cost in CO2 ...

And in fact, in a well done study, no direct emission should be zero, since the operation of the technologies indirectly emits CO2 (unless it is included in the LCA of this table?) ... 2 examples:

a) The demand wind of the regular maintenance, whether preventive or curative, it requires maintenance teams ... (it is the solar that needs the least maintenance in fact)

b) A nuclear power plant of 2 reactors (Fessenheim https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_ ... Fessenheim ) it's about 1000 employees ... how come work? By car of course ...

Source: http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/Fermet ... aiment-les (figure probably a little underestimated)

The average French work is about 25km, so it is 50 000 km per day traveled ... 120gr / CO2 ... 6 tons of CO2 per day NOTHING for the movement of employees to operate the plant. ..this is certainly very little compared to the electrical energy produced each day (23 GWh ... 0.25 g / kWh) but it is not zero and it was an easy example to demonstrate.

There are dozens of other posts to consider, see the link above ...

In short believe that the nuclear 0 emission CO2, it's the same as believe in the electric car 0 global emissions ... and the nuclear is no longer, either, the energy independence of the France since we closed the last uranium mine in France (year 80 ...)

[Christophe]

Another source of CO2 / kWh figure for different European countries (excluding ACV I think): https://www.econologie.com/europe-emiss ... lectrique/

[moinsdewatt]

What is a lot?

To start it's more than zero!

Then I posted above a link to studies on the co2 and nuclear ... (but it seems to me that they do not take into account the dismantling ...)

To summarize: the nuclear produces much co2 but it is undoubtedly its least worrying waste ...

If it's thermal this comparative table is even more deceiving since wind, solar and hydro is electricity ... so we compare cabbages and carrots ...

So I persist and sign: quickly found, quickly trash ...

ps: thank you for the "null" ...

The document you mentioned also says 6g CO2 by KWh according to EDF and 35g for the ökö institute.
Bad. It's not much.