4e generation nuclear reactor

[Janic]

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.

Not only, nuclear power stations were for exclusively military purposes and the energy produced and wasted then finds a "moral" justification by using this by-product to supply steam and therefore electricity. The big bad becomes the good one and therefore justifies an intensive development always with the objective of providing enriched uranium for our bombs in our arms race. Maintaining nuclear power plants is therefore politically necessary to regularly renew our stock bombinettes.

[Cuicui]

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.

Not only, nuclear power stations were for exclusively military purposes and the energy produced and wasted then finds a "moral" justification by using this by-product to supply steam and therefore electricity. The big bad becomes the good one and therefore justifies an intensive development always with the objective of providing enriched uranium for our bombs in our arms race. Maintaining nuclear power plants is therefore politically necessary to regularly renew our stock bombinettes.

+ 1
In addition, the reprocessing makes it possible to recover a nice crap, namely plutonium which makes it possible to make bombs and to partially supply other fission power plants (Mox fuel, mixture of uranium and plutonium). Nothing to do with the hypothesis of "exponential consumption" dear to our philosophical theorists.

[sen-no-sen]

Not only, nuclear power stations were for exclusively military purposes and the energy produced and wasted then finds a "moral" justification by using this by-product to supply steam and therefore electricity.

It's somewhat ... exaggerate ...!

France entered the nuclear air in 1960 for the A bomb, and in 1966 for the H bomb.

If indeed the first reactors were designed in an exclusively military logic (Marcoule, Chinon) as you do well to emphasize, they were not the case for the following: Belleville, Blayais ,, Cattenom, ChinonB, Chooz, Civaux, Cruas, Dampierre, Flamanville ,, Golfech, Graveniles, Nogent, Paluel, Penly, St Alban, St Laurent, Tricastin) all built after the episodes of oil crises (1973-1979).

Note however that for practical reasons, some sites have played the double military / civilian cap.

The big bad guy becomes the good guy and therefore justifies intensive development, always with the aim of providing enriched uranium for our bombs in our arms race.

We had about 540 nuclear warheads in 1992, against 300 now, the race is not played from now on in the number, but in the capacity of the vectors, and in the "improvement" of the nuclear warheads ...

Maintaining nuclear power plants is therefore politically necessary to regularly renew our stock bombs.

19 nuclear power plants to maintain 300 mainly thermonuclear heads (therefore using only a few kg of plutonium) would do a lot, and does not correspond to reality.
Especially since the Hague has stocked thousands of tons of this bastard for years ... and that the USA send us stock from the dismantling of the Cold War to make mox ... and ponion.


Cuicui wrote:

In addition, reprocessing makes it possible to recover a beautiful piece of crap, namely plutonium which makes it possible to make bombs and partially supply other fission power plants (Mox fuel, mixture of uranium and plutonium).

Naive question from a philosopher theorist: why want to refuel plants with spent fuel?

Nothing to do with the hypothesis of "exponential consumption" dear to our philosophical theorists.

Little ethological question: why want to have nuclear warheads?
Another question: At what period in history its arsenals were developed, and in what context economic?

[Ahmed]

Thanks! Fatigue, no doubt!
I wanted to say:

In current social forms, there is no hope that abundant energy will be used other than for destructive purposes.

[sen-no-sen]

Thanks! Fatigue, no doubt!
I wanted to say:

In current social forms, there is no hope that abundant energy will be used other than for destructive purposes.

I thought also!

[Ahmed]

Better to be a little obscure at times and have attentive and clairvoyant readers than the opposite!

[Cuicui]

Especially since the Hague has stocked thousands of tons of this bastard for years ... and that the USA send us stock from the dismantling of the Cold War to make mox ... and ponion.
why would you want to refuel plants with spent fuel?
Little ethological question: why want to have nuclear warheads?

Your sources? The putonium reserve is about 70 kg, it's a horror anyway. Aren't you confused with depleted uranium used to make shells?
The plutonium recovered is unfortunately not used at all. But it degrades over time, hence the need for maintenance of nuclear warheads.
The decision to make nuclear bombs dates from the last world war. Our soldiers are systematically late for a war.
The only exponential thing right now is the increase in wealth of a minority of the wealthy.

[Cuicui]

The only exponential thing right now is the increase in wealth of a minority of the wealthy.

This very small minority in the world of finance, industry, the army and the media puts the planet and its inhabitants in a controlled cut, without the slightest concern for the well-being of the populations. One has to wonder if they are really human. They will only change their behavior if they are forced to.

[sen-no-sen]

Especially since the Hague has stocked thousands of tons of this bastard for years ... and that the USA send us stock from the dismantling of the Cold War to make mox ... and ponion.
why would you want to refuel plants with spent fuel?
Little ethological question: why want to have nuclear warheads?

Your sources? The putonium reserve is about 70 kg, it's a horror anyway. Aren't you confused with depleted uranium used to make shells?

Yes as much for me, I was talking about fuels liable to be diverted for military purposes.
For plutonium alone, some speak of ten tonnes (JPP mentions 60 tonnes?)
La Hague produces around 8/9 tonnes of Plutonium per year ...
For that of armament quality we are indeed in its orders there (-100kg).


In fact, you did not answer my questions?

[Janic]

One has to wonder if they are really human. They will only change their behavior if they are forced to.

who would oblige them? The past shows us that like hydras if you cut a head it repels 2 and that wolves do not devour each other and sheep have never devoured wolves.