Cuicui wrote:Ahmed wrote:Sen-no-sen, thank you for your relevant contributions which save me a lot of fatigue!
Philosophy is all well and good, but I don't quite see how to use it, in practice, to put an end to fission reactors.
On the contrary, by a thorough analysis, and by a rational and impartial reasoning, it quickly appears to us solutions to the problems posed.
If we analyze the nuclear issue, without entering into a "nucleophobic" type ideological debate, it appears historically that this technology - originally military - has become industrial following the oil shocks of 1973 and 79 .
Civil nuclear power was therefore born in a context of growth (end of the “glorious thirties”) and served as a palliative for the lack of oil, the undisputed and indisputable energy of growth.
It appears that nuclear has served, serves, and will serve an ideology, that of exponential growth (I add exponential, because no character in the political-economic sphere has indicated when it should end.)
Given the gigantism of infrastructures, nuclear power has always been thought of as a tool for mass production in order to force-feed our insatiable economy, indeed, the pocket nuclear reactor for individuals, is hardly possible given the risks that presents this type of installation.
By extrapolating into the future it is not difficult to see that all nuclear programs
Next generation follow this logic of growth.
From the Marcoule G1 pilot reactor producing 2MW of electricity, we switched to the EPR and its 1600MW and DEMO (the pre-industrial phase derived from ITER) "" should "" produce between 2000 and 4000 MW!
By extrapolating now on the possible development of a magnetic necking reactor, I do not see how this technology would escape this logic of growth?
There appear to be two things to take seriously into account:
1) Fossil and mining energies (oil, gas, coal, uranium and derivatives) have allowed the emergence and continuity of industrial society, and those due to their capacity to provide energy in gigantic quantities.
Yet its technologies have the consequences of producing pollution and eventual catastrophes, and presents limits related to their supplies .... yet we continue to use them until they dry up and those despite the damage caused.
2) Taking into account point 1, and imagining now that we have an unlimited source of energy on our scale, by what means should our actions cease?
You do not wean an alcoholic by giving him more alcohol!
So in summary, to put an end to fission reactors (among others), it is necessary to start by reorienting our objectives towards a diminishing society.
An example: before the development of civil nuclear power, France was one of the most advanced countries in the field of bioclimatic housing, energy in abundance has largely served this cause.
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.