Why dismantle nuclear power plants?

[Christophe]

Corine Lepage has just taken up my 2011 argument at the origin of this subject: securing the nuclear site and leaving everything as it is until "we know how to do better" ...

As part of this program: https://www.econologie.com/forums/nucleaire- ... 12507.html

[chatelot16]

bin here! econology ended up being heard!

I agree that simply strengthening the buildings of a shutdown power plant so that it can last as long as possible is a good idea ... avoid spending money to disperse what we do not know at all way to make it disappear

[Christophe]

Yes, no point in dispersing radioactive parts ...

Being heard can be ... but if it is the case a little gratitude would be welcome!

Isn't it Corinne?

[chatelot16]

Christopher said:

new wind projects must fund their dismantling on blocked account for 20 years!

Trade, all that! When we see that a Twingo (mechanical) holds 17 years, that an electronic alarm (powered 24 hours a day) can hold 24 years, even 26, we think that they have been handed off junk. .and when you see the lifespan of some planes.

The pylon and its base, normally maintained, should be able to last 30 or 40 years

dumb ! a wind turbine is not radio active: its dismantling will bring in money: copper steel, aluminum easy to recycle ... easy to dismantle! ... a little explosive at the foot, and not even need a crane

not to mention that when the basket is obsolete the mat will be good to last a century more, and that we will put a new machine!

[Christophe]

Of course it's stupid but a lobby is not to be clever when asked ...

[Did67]

I agree that simply strengthening the buildings of a shutdown power plant so that it can last as long as possible is a good idea ... avoid spending money to disperse what we do not know at all way to make it disappear

I don't necessarily agree:

a) temptation to leave the mess "entirely" to future generations. A kind of well-wrapped gift.

[Note that anyway, we leave them a hell of a gift after "enjoying"! They will have to pay for the storage / processing without having had electricity. A bit as if I used my laptop at 2 euros / month, but that for 100 generations, my heirs will pay a subscription without having the laptop !!!]

This is the door open to the nuclear lobby. They will say to themselves: "Since we are authorized to put this under a" hat "and leave the gift for the future, let's exploit today and make a maximum of profit". The "charges", let's leave them for future generations!

ATTENTION DANGER !!!

On a personal basis: niet. The current operator must pay for dismantling and ultimate storage. This is the only way to charge the "true cost" of nuclear power. So, very quickly, the renewable energies will be "at parity". And very quickly, the nuclear industry will be ... forgotten!

b) In a power plant, there is everything. Sorting out seems a good thing to me. Concentrate in one or two points the most dangerous waste (there is all the same nice crap like plutonium and cobalt I do not know how much ...), in a site which is the "safest possible" in the state current knowledge, also seems to me a good thing. Rather than leaving that in 59 power stations all around France !!!

Rather than freezing a plant made of odds and ends, with this dangerous waste in the middle of nature which will take back its rights!

You have to classify, store, identify, pack. At least that !!!

It is a burden that must be imposed on operators. Who got the benefits, let's not forget. We will leave him the benefits ???

c) On the other hand, in fact, I think that this waste should be put away so as to be able to be reworked, taken over the day when we "know how to do better". There and only there, I join you (or I join Corine Lepage - who is my birthright is a lawyer, so it is obvious that "technical" ideas, she borrows them and becomes ... the lawyer!).

[that said, when you know the very principle of radioactivity, I don't see what there is to "invent" ??? the problem, which was not said to my knowledge on the program, is that we "created from scratch" radioactive elements that did not exist or in the natural content was very low at the scale of the globe; and that no method is known to destroy them - except the bombs -; and that perhaps there will never be a method ...]

[Aumicron]

The current operator must pay for dismantling and ultimate storage. This is the only way to charge the "true cost". And that very quickly, the industry will be ... forgotten!

...

On the other hand, in fact, I think that this waste should be stored so that it can be reworked, taken back the day when we "know how to do better".

Unfortunately, we clearly see that the cost is so high (even unknown) that in our current society your proposal is unacceptable.

The choice is to bury waste permanently and basta. And soon the waste is forgotten ...!

[Did67]

Yes.

My formula was clumsy: the operator must pay the maximum possible. In particular deconstruction, sorting, packaging, "storage" in a secure place, etc ...

Allowing the “freezing of plants as is” would be much worse. It is to reduce the cost to the minimum possible and Transfer ALL on future generations ...

There is this danger in defending "doing nothing while waiting for a solution" ...

It is necessary to "seal" the nuclear bill as much as possible and to transfer the maximum costs to today's operators!

[sen-no-sen]

Yes.

Allowing the “freezing of plants as is” would be much worse. It is to reduce the cost to the minimum possible and Transfer ALL on future generations ...

There is this danger in defending "doing nothing while waiting for a solution" ...

It is necessary to "seal" the nuclear bill as much as possible and to transfer the maximum costs to today's operators!

I agree with you, we must not refer to the Greek calanders the dismantling of power plants, and those for different reasons:

-One by dismantling offers a possibility of leadership in a cutting-edge field that naturally comes back to us ...

-Secondly, we should hardly expect a miracle solution for dismantling, because it is not these that are really problematic, but the storage of waste, apart from that, apart from placing it in an improved rubbiatron, which would astronomical, I hardly see any issue.

-It is up to the polluter to pay, not to the next generation, a fortiori in a world plagued by major ecological challenges.

On the other hand, it will design sites and storage means which make it possible to recover waste in the event of recycling via technologies beyond our current scope.

That said, we must tackle the task now, and it will cost us at least 100 to 150 billion euros .... of the 6 provisioning and possibly passed out on the stock market!

After the American real estate bubble, make way for the French nuclear bubble!

[Did67]

-One by dismantling offers a possibility of leadership in a cutting-edge field that naturally comes back to us ...

Did you see the story ????

So you saw that those who work "cleanly" and "massively" are the Germans in Lubmin (4 reactors almost dismantled).

While EdF, in Brennilis or Chooz, subcontracts to subcontractors who subcontract ...

It's a shame: at the end of this "phase", the Germans will have a leadership role in wind power, photovoltaics (with the USA and China), biomass (pellets, cogeneration) and .... dismantling.

By dint of avoiding the problem with us and devoting its efforts to delay the stop, the train will be there too!

[my first instinct was to think, "he's exaggerating the author a bit" - whom I thought was German -; systematically, the franaçis tinker; the Germans are doing everything well ... and I waited for the credits: the author is ... French! And when you see the interview with the official German agency, you understand: "yes, there is a serious problem, which must be resolved"; we are far from the "negation" of the French lobby; an alcollic who denies his condition does not want to be treated !!! Check this while it's on replay!]