EPR: the future Chernobyl?

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 ...
Aumicron
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 387
Registration: 16/09/09, 16:43
Location: Bordeaux




by Aumicron » 21/03/10, 15:36

bbenoit wrote:I am also against nuclear power, but I nevertheless ask myself a question, if we decide to shut down these nuclear reactors, what should be replaced?

We could perhaps ask the question to the Germans who made this decision and who implemented an action plan.
0 x
To argue.
bbenoit
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 9
Registration: 22/02/10, 21:51
Location: Strasbourg




by bbenoit » 21/03/10, 15:54

Precisely, the whole problem is there. The German action plan exists (by the way, what does it plan to compensate for?), But how are they going to implement it? This plan has been around for years, but how many reactors have already been shut down?

And then how do you compensate for a closed nuclear tranche? The nuclear Kwh costs around 3 to 4 cts, the thermal kWh is rather around 30 cts. Who is willing to pay their bill 10 times more expensive? (and then solar even more, if we amortized its installation over 20 years, it should rather be around 40 to 50 cts I think)

Rather than seeking to change energy sources, it is of course more reasonable to reduce consumption. But in France, to do without nuclear, you would have to divide your consumption by 5

... there is a long way ...
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 22/03/10, 15:42

3 to 4 cents per kWH Nuclear, you can forget !!! The costs real are hidden!
You should know that nuclear is very (very very) largely subsidized by the state ... we must look at the side of our taxes and our debts ...
No serious economist is able to determine with precision the real cost of nuclear power and its collateral damage.
It has been almost 30 years that different governments have been asking themselves about the long-term storage of waste, and the cost of its implementation.

As for the real solutions to do without nuclear, they are voluntarily put aside: vortex tower 1,5 to 2 times lower than the price of a nuclear unit of the same power, and concentrated solar (cost still high because development still marginal ).
a+
0 x
Aumicron
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 387
Registration: 16/09/09, 16:43
Location: Bordeaux




by Aumicron » 23/03/10, 09:17

bbenoit wrote:The German action plan exists (by the way, what does it plan to compensate for?), But how are they going to implement it? This plan has been around for years, but how many reactors have already been shut down?

From my point of view, the question is not "how many reactors have already been shut down?", But thanks to their decision to Exit Nuclear, how many more KWH of renewable energy have they produced?
0 x
To argue.
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 23/03/10, 10:02

bbenoit wrote:if we decide to shut down these nuclear reactors, what to replace them with?


Already, by the difference in electricity consumption between summer and winter, we are sure that heating represents more than 1/3 of electricity consumption in France.

We know that wood and thermal solar are available to provide all the heating and hot water, including for washing:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post163647.html#163647
And technically, everything is available at a lower cost than electricity.

So we have already solved 1/3 of the nuclear problem, and even more because 16% of the plants are used to produce the electricity used by the other plants, the nuclear fuel sector and THT transport.

In addition, photovoltaic solar makes it possible to solve the problem of consumption independent of time: everything that is triggered by the "night" tariffs. Which would then become the "sun" tariff :-) We can see it on the RTE curves, by the peak starting at 22pm. I don't have an official figure, but I estimate it at 20%

Then, the photovoltaic allows to regulate all the daily consumption with the solar schedules.

Without particular problems, and by simple political decisions, we can reduce electricity consumption in France by more than 50% while increasing our independence from oil and nuclear power and while reducing the bill ...
0 x
See you soon !
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 23/03/10, 10:10

Hi Bernard,

absolutely.

But it doesn’t do everybody’s business ... :?
0 x
Image
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 23/03/10, 14:58

Everyone will find their stuff there and will agree after a new Chernobyl, inevitable, sooner or later, faster than an earthquake !!!
Nuclear power must be infallible in perpetuity, humanly impossible, and so we will have another Chernobyl, evacuating an entire region of a million people, in less than a day forever for centuries, even millennia, contaminating any inedible food!
Chernobyl collapsed the USSR and the economy of France (or any other country) will do the following !!
No insurance will suffice !!!
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 23/03/10, 15:33

Yes Dede,

Our leaders, in particular the people of CEA know all that. And all citizens who are a little informed know this too.

But a disaster as serious as Chernobyl is unlikely, on the other hand small accidental leaks and constant releases of radionuclides linked to the fuel cycle already take place, sometimes published, sometimes not ...

there is no point in getting upset, relax. In France, the atom is a state within a state and powerful private funds control the essential actors (EDF, Areva, Gaz de France ...)

In addition to that, peak oil and the decarbonization of the electric mix opens up a real boulevard lined with banknotes for the nuclear industry.

So you see, to alleviate your fears, it would be necessary simultaneously to conquer political, economic and industrial powers ... and to take the opposite of a policy carried out for 40 years. 8)

... namely promoting a massively decentralized and renewable electric mix with rational heating (solar + hydrocarbons) ...

instead of an ultra centralized electric mix, stuffed with fission and irrational Joule heating :P
0 x
Image
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 23/03/10, 16:10

So you see, to alleviate your fears, it would be necessary simultaneously to conquer political, economic and industrial powers ... and to take the opposite of a policy carried out for 40 years.

It is a certain scientific reality, as for a future earthquake, or a meteorite, sooner or later, we will have a new Chernobyl, since human infallibility is impossible!
It is impossible to allay my fears, given this scientific certainty, but when such a big accident (not too big?) Will occur, the disaster will succeed in "simultaneously conquering political, economic and industrial powers ... and taking to the opposite of a policy pursued for 40 years "and more.
The French, its elite, and even environmentalists are like ostriches to hide their heads in the face of future danger, and to say that global warming is more serious than a new Chernobyl in a very populated region !!!
In the past the climate has fluctuated so much on all time scales without human CO2, that it is illusory and absurd to believe that it can continue to be stable without or with CO2, for the future !!!
But warming up leaves a little more time to evacuate an area than a day or a night !!!

Easy action: ask all of our insurers for a reliable Chernobyl nuclear disaster insurance policy and not the current catastrophe insurance which does not insure the damage other than house and which does not have sufficient provision !!!!
0 x
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 23/03/10, 16:48

There is an effective way to act: your town.

Because the electrical distribution network belongs to your municipality, which puts it in common with other neighboring municipalities, within the framework of an inter-municipal union.

This syndicate then decides either to operate the electrical distribution itself, by constituting a management, or it organizes a concession, and after invitation to tender on specifications, chooses a concessionaire.

There are very few electric control systems in France, but they are efficient.

Most often, this is a concession to EDF (now in the ErDF part of EDF ...).

But the concession has an end and will be renewed: every citizen can act!

- either by asking to change the management method, by going into the control room for example, and most of the municipalities that have made this change for water are pleased;

- either by participating in the drafting of the next specifications which integrate pollution constraints, in particular nuclear, and the concept of renewable energy and energy independence.

And of course, if the municipal councilors chosen as municipal delegates in the electrical unions have a conscience, or even do not work for EDF, then everything is better ...

Then, whether under management or in concession, there is a need for citizen follow-up work: it's like the union council, you have to follow it carefully.

And these changes are being prepared, 1 or 2 years in advance at least: ErDF is doing it carefully.
0 x
See you soon !

 


  • 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 306 guests