Nuclear replaced by renewable = monstrous says Sarko

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 ...
Picolo
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 26
Registration: 21/03/10, 23:14




by Picolo » 01/05/11, 19:58

In addition (just to drive the point home a bit), I see the "this example does not work, certainly, but I have posted others" coming as big as a house. At least, if you guide me, I would not have to argue against a virtual infinity of solutions (even if you had written that 5, reached the 5th, nothing would prevent you from saying: "you have not searched enough, I posted something else ...)

So do me the pleasure of posting a link if you have even a little bit of self-esteem ... Otherwise, you would recognize that it is lost in advance.
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15940
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5162




by Remundo » 01/05/11, 20:04

Hello Picolo,

what are you looking for exactly?
0 x
Image
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79002
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10934




by Christophe » 01/05/11, 20:09

I think he's looking for trollism. Cf https://www.econologie.com/forums/brevet-ren ... 10733.html

Why do you want it?

: Shock:
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 01/05/11, 20:09

Remundo wrote:Hello Picolo,

what are you looking for exactly?

+ 1, concretely what? (Same questions as the last two posts) : roll: : roll: : roll:
0 x
Picolo
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 26
Registration: 21/03/10, 23:14




by Picolo » 01/05/11, 21:02

Obamot wrote:
Remundo wrote:Hello Picolo,

what are you looking for exactly?

+ 1, concretely what? (Same questions as the last two posts) : roll: : roll: : roll:


For this thread, not much: there was a focus on the "monstrous" which seemed to me to be badly interpreted compared to what I could see elsewhere. So I explained how Sarko, from what I saw, considered these "attacks" on nuclear as monstrous by concluding that it is not enough to a political choice for the technologies to be ready or to make it doable.

I also supported this last point by saying that no one who criticized has given clear, precise and reasonable instructions.

People come to me saying "What you say is archival, there are solutions, it's up to you to find them on this site". I ask to give me a precise reference (because I will not take all the rants of each one one by one to take them apart, if I can)

The "if I can", even if it appears in parentheses is in fact the important element of the sentence, even of the paragraph since my final goal is still to see what you could come up with, if that seems stupid to me or not.

I am not coming here to "break" the econologist, even if that is the form it has taken so far. My goal was to see, outside of the scientific sphere, what people might think of these subjects. The aggressive and ironic tone as well as my apparent pride are there only in addition to troll a little, it is true, but especially to provoke reactions (even if I do not think of exaggerating anything in the bottom of my messages).
Incidentally too, to repeat ad nauseam 2 + 2 = 5 is abject. Coming to teach me a lesson on how a heat engine works, for example, is something I accept because I know that I am not a mechanic and that I have not worked on it. However, when it comes to the Carnot cycle, typical exercise, boat, 1001 times performed and someone comes to tell me that what matters is the temperature at the outlet (therefore the exchange with the cold source is carried out outside the system), it's just filthy. I would not have reacted in this way if I had been told "but it seemed to me that the exchange with the cold source was done outside". I might even have shown a curve, drawings, to better explain. But there, knowing full well that he does not know anything about it, the speaker stands out as an expert. What will readers believe next? That the exchange takes place outside the system?

I have the impression that there is a base of common beliefs here and that as long as no one questions these beliefs, then we can tell anything. The problem is that I have the impression that these beliefs are not all correct and verified in reality. If you want, sometimes I feel like many of you are laughing and self-congratulating think demonstrate that Zeus is the source of lightning and lightning.

Afterwards, if you don't want a fresh look here, you have to say it. But for my part, I do not consider that the end justifies the means and that in fact, we can tell anything and find muddy explanations that we are not going to verify just because it goes in the direction of beliefs. .. I'm sorry, but in science, beliefs, it's fine for a minute, but afterwards, in the closet! What we know, we know because it has been checked over and over again, because it is consistent with the rest of the knowledge and this until someone rigorously demonstrates that what we thought that knowing is false (or more often, insufficiently precise). Hence, for example, my thread on the Renault patent to show that you are not necessarily going to pick up your information where it is needed.

Because, and this is the last thing, in the scientific world, we chased after the water engine for a long time, but the more we advance the more we realize that it is impossible. Thermodynamics put the end to this madness and yet, some still believe in it ... I would have liked to know what convinces you ... And I think I realize that it is all the time about experiments "black boxes" in which we do not understand what we are doing, in which we do not know the limits of the techniques used, the variables of interest and where we congratulate ourselves on jumping to the conclusions we want for a complete lack of rigor.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 01/05/11, 21:22

As it cracked ....
Image
Calm down! We do not land here with barely ten posts on the clock and slamming it in our face:

Picolo wrote: "It's normal that you don't have any solutions, you don't want to have any because of the nuclear lobby", etc. etc. In short, NO ANSWER, EXHAUSTS ONLY AND LANGUAGE OF WOOD !


... before continuing to speak here, it is strongly recommended that you take some time to go through all the sections. Because unlike other sites on the web, this one MANY SOLUTIONS, very well structured by the admin ...

Informing yourself, forming an opinion is "no one's job": it's clear!

And now I really hope that you will give us the pleasure of not locking yourself in denial, like some [...] and taking a good week before coming back to us with better intentions; - / in the meantime, my little finger tells me that the woodcutter is not far away ... ^^
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 01/05/11, 21:47

Hello Picolo

You tackle dedeleco a little quickly ..... which is certainly one of the ones that give the most links that really hold water and this on many subjects in many fields. His analyzes are not always shared, but they are most often very relevant and well documented.

As he recommended, read a little what he could write and you will see if it is a charlot .... or if you can ask a few questions before entering the bacon . : Mrgreen:
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15940
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5162




by Remundo » 01/05/11, 22:36

Christophe wrote:I think he's looking for trollism. Cf https://www.econologie.com/forums/brevet-ren ... 10733.html

Why do you want it?

: Shock:

to put a little distance from the "trenches" statements, not to say trenchant of Picolo on many subjects ...

this is one of the uses of Vouvoyer : Idea:
0 x
Image
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15940
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5162




by Remundo » 01/05/11, 22:53

Well, I still don't know exactly what we are talking about with Picolo, but let's say that his problem revolves around 'there are no alternative solutions to nuclear power' and that those who complain about this sector are roughly jesters.

We can do without nuclear energy completely, and without massively using other fossils, of course not overnight.

I don't have time to get into a big scientific-technical debate, but let's just remember that everything is ALREADY technically ready: passive house, electric car, photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, hydroelectricity, biomass combustion and various organic waste ...

In addition, there are prospects for improving the yields of all these techniques, and the emergence of still fairly experimental energies such as deep geothermal energy, or thermal energy from the seas, Stirling microcogeneration ...

Without forgetting a parallel and complementary energy saving approach. On this subject, there is a very interesting prospective, which is the Negawatt scenario

With regard to this subject, note that what is monstrous is nuclear power, not the end of nuclear power.

By temporarily relying on a dirty energy system (nuclear + hydrocarbons), we must launch a new energy system based on renewables, sufficiently efficient and productive to "self-maintain" in the future without being infused with fossils.

In reality, the heart of the problem is the energy transition ...
0 x
Image
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 01/05/11, 23:27

Another false pearl strung without hesitation by picolo !!
It is a cold gas which will relax with the increase in temperature, not a hot gas !!!

A cold gas at increased temperature (by combustion) becomes a hot gas (hot source) before relaxing to become after a cold gas (in contact with the cold source, in fact the exhaust) !!
picolo declares absolutely anything, never having understood what precise and rigorous reasoning is !! !!!
0 x

 


  • 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 195 guests