Fessenheim, the nuclear power plant has 30 years!

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 ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79122
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Fessenheim, the nuclear power plant is 30 years old!




by Christophe » 02/02/18, 11:39

0 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Fessenheim, the nuclear power plant is 30 years old!




by Bardal » 03/02/18, 11:09

Christophe wrote:a) To believe that French nuclear power will weigh on global CO2 emissions is quite naive as reasoning ...

b) There is a big carbon scam on the part of the nuclear industry: this one produces good and it is not me who says it is the ADEME! energies-fossil-nuclear / nuclear-and-effect-of-greenhouse-ges-co2-and-EDF-t8139.html

c) The intermittence of renewable energies is reduced as the different technologies are deployed

But the Germans are certainly incompetent ...


a) It is a little surprising as a reasoning; on the pretext that France is not very large (which is correct), it is useless for it to be concerned with GHG emissions; what should we do, switch to all-coal on the pretext that China burns a lot more?

b) The ADEME article is twisted: it compares a house heated with fuel oil and with nuclear electricity with other means of heating with cogeneration! And despite that nuclear power is not one of the worst ... But who are we kidding? And if we had taken nuclear electricity and PAC heating (which is much less complex and expensive than cogeneration), or even with simple convectors, what would we get? Intellectual honesty is not the strength of ADEME ...

c) The intermittence of renewable energies remains complete, with the exception of hydroelectricity (for which no more investments are made due to a lack of available sites); it is this intermittence which obliges the installation of a "backup" equal to peak demand, and a producer of GHGs. The sun never shines at night, and the wind does not blow in high pressure conditions, it must be remembered ...

A minimum of intellectual rigor, in the absence of scientific rigor, should be imposed on the ADEME, obviously submerged by some fundamentalist ideologues who hesitate before any dishonest process to try to prove their beliefs.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Fessenheim, the nuclear power plant is 30 years old!




by sen-no-sen » 03/02/18, 11:36

bardal wrote:
a) It is a little surprising as a reasoning; on the pretext that France is not very large (which is correct), it is useless for it to be concerned with GHG emissions; what should we do, switch to all-coal on the pretext that China burns a lot more?


This argument is however valid, it is hypocritical to speak of maintaining nuclear production in France for GHG reasons, the truth is that nuclear is part of a logic of maintaining energy production guaranteeing socio-economic balance of our country.
Ecology has little to do with it.
Even the most optimistic scenarios for the development of the global nuclear industry do not exceed 20% (compared to barely 8% today) of the overall energy balance.
Suffice to say that even in such a scenario it is not nuclear that will prevent us from taking heatstrokes in the future!

The intermittence of renewable energies remains intact, with the exception of hydroelectricity (for which we no longer invest due to a lack of available sites); it is this intermittence which obliges the installation of a "backup" equal to peak demand, and a producer of GHGs. The sun never shines at night, and the wind does not blow in high pressure conditions, it must be remembered ...


Hence huge investments, which should be remembered, will have to be replaced every 25 years (lifetime of a wind turbine and photovoltaic panels).
We should therefore probably move towards a nuclear / renewable mix in the future, which will in any case be very expensive, too expensive even with regard to other files (pensions, education, internal and external security, social minima).
1 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15994
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189

Re: Fessenheim, the nuclear power plant is 30 years old!




by Remundo » 03/02/18, 11:37

bardal wrote:b) The ADEME article is twisted: it compares a house heated with fuel oil and with nuclear electricity with other means of heating with cogeneration! And despite that nuclear power is not one of the worst ... But who are we kidding? And if we had taken nuclear electricity and PAC heating (which is much less complex and expensive than cogeneration), or even with simple convectors, what would we get? Intellectual honesty is not the strength of ADEME ...

Go quickly get hired to raise the level. I promise, we won't report your little jibes read on Econo.
0 x
Image
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79122
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Fessenheim, the nuclear power plant is 30 years old!




by Christophe » 03/02/18, 12:08

Twisted reasoning level I adore you Bardal !!

Because yours is like:

a) Ademe reports that nuclear emits a lot of CO2, so it's twisted

b) A few years later when the Ademe turns over his jacket and claims ridiculously low emissions then this is good reasoning

Tell us who pays you and we'll tell you who you are (since obviously you don't know yourself)!

ps: I divided the topics yesterday, please continue here about CO2 emissions energies-fossil-nuclear / nuclear-and-carbon-emissions-what-in-co2-kwh-digit-pwc-EDF-ADEME-stanford-t15536.html
0 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Fessenheim, the nuclear power plant is 30 years old!




by Bardal » 03/02/18, 16:42

Christophe wrote:Twisted reasoning level I adore you Bardal !!

Because yours is like:

a) Ademe reports that nuclear emits a lot of CO2, so it's twisted

b) A few years later when the Ademe turns over his jacket and claims ridiculously low emissions then this is good reasoning

Tell us who pays you and we'll tell you who you are (since obviously you don't know yourself)!

ps: I divided the topics yesterday, please continue here about CO2 emissions energies-fossil-nuclear / nuclear-and-carbon-emissions-what-in-co2-kwh-digit-pwc-EDF-ADEME-stanford-t15536.html


Ademe issues a twisted report, I say it; and with a few arguments, verifiable by everyone ...

I generally try to argue in a readable and understandable way ... I expect in return such legible arguments ... I see that you have none, and that you prefer anathema to exchange; So are you so lacking in arguments to do a pirouette (a little worn, and more very funny) in order to avoid the debate?

I am only a modest retiree from National Education, and I would prefer the income of a lobbyist, but this is not the case. I've been called a lobbyist on this several times forum; this has become the supreme "argument" when some have nothing more to say, or have so little confidence in their reasoning that they prefer to keep them quiet ...

Warning ! A forum where the regulars no longer tolerate that between themselves and the authorized litanies is no longer a forum, it is a place of worship, a mass hall where the liturgy is already written for the end of the centuries.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79122
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Fessenheim, the nuclear power plant is 30 years old!




by Christophe » 03/02/18, 17:02

I have no argument? I leave the hat as much figure as you, the difference between you and me is that I accept a certain form of compromise, you much less it seems to me!

No, no, you didn't understand anything!

We are a sect here and it was not yesterday !! : Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy:
It made me laugh at the time ... a little yellow anyway but when you want to kill your dog you say he has rabies is well known!

Back to 2005:
bistro / sect-the-econology-t641.html

Well, the decreasing ones were essentially guys from the national education (mostly academics ...) ...
But it is certainly a pure coincidence!

ps: my tolerance stops there we start the intolerance of others!
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15994
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189

Re: Fessenheim, the nuclear power plant is 30 years old!




by Remundo » 03/02/18, 17:12

ah Mr Bardal, a modest pensioner from the EN;

and where does this verve come from to defend tooth and nail nuclear which is a big industry of radioactive dumping and chronic deficits?

PS: if the forum don't like it, there are others!
1 x
Image
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Fessenheim, the nuclear power plant is 30 years old!




by Bardal » 03/02/18, 17:46

sen-no-sen wrote:
bardal wrote:
a) It is a little surprising as a reasoning; on the pretext that France is not very large (which is correct), it is useless for it to be concerned with GHG emissions; what should we do, switch to all-coal on the pretext that China burns a lot more?


This argument is however valid, it is hypocritical to speak of maintaining nuclear production in France for GHG reasons, the truth is that nuclear is part of a logic of maintaining energy production guaranteeing socio-economic balance of our country.
Ecology has little to do with it.
Even the most optimistic scenarios for the development of the global nuclear industry do not exceed 20% (compared to barely 8% today) of the overall energy balance.
Suffice to say that even in such a scenario it is not nuclear that will prevent us from taking heatstrokes in the future!

The intermittence of renewable energies remains intact, with the exception of hydroelectricity (for which we no longer invest due to a lack of available sites); it is this intermittence which obliges the installation of a "backup" equal to peak demand, and a producer of GHGs. The sun never shines at night, and the wind does not blow in high pressure conditions, it must be remembered ...


Hence huge investments, which should be remembered, will have to be replaced every 25 years (lifetime of a wind turbine and photovoltaic panels).
We should therefore probably move towards a nuclear / renewable mix in the future, which will in any case be very expensive, too expensive even with regard to other files (pensions, education, internal and external security, social minima).


I can hear your speech (which you have developed several times on this forum), and I have never had any illusions about the origin and nature of nuclear energy. I would even add that at the start, nuclear power in France was furthermore motivated by the desire to obtain, in an "independent" manner, the plutonium necessary for a national strike force; until choosing a dangerous technology (graphite-gas), but more productive of Pu. The USSR had taken the same step, with the result that we know.
It is an essentially pessimistic speech, which I do not want to share in full (but that is another problem) ...

On the background:

- nuclear energy is undoubtedly registered "in a logic of maintaining energy production guaranteeing the socio-economic balance of our country". But this is the case for all forms of energy, including green energies, and even for all human productions. If we had to wait until capitalist productivism has ceased to prevail, neither you nor I would have computer equipment, telematics or means of transport; I'm not even sure we could feed ourselves.

- is there legitimacy, in this context, to try to choose the least bad way, the least harmful, to try to face formidable deadlines concerning the whole of humanity? France is one of the countries in the world that consume the most, emits the most GHG / per capita, although a good part of the faulty industries has been expatriated - with CO2 emissions - to emerging countries; should we ignore a fight that should be global under the sole pretext that we are not heavy?

- Nuclear alone will not be able to save us from an ecological disaster? Without a doubt, but no one has ever claimed the opposite ... That said wind turbines and PV either can not do more. On the other hand, it can add its share, at least in certain countries; and it would be silly in my opinion to deprive yourself of it, by pretexting I don't know what infantile terrors which do not resist any serious analysis.

My environmental positioning (fairly close in fact to Swedish environmentalists who do not refuse nuclear power), valid in my opinion only for France and for most of the countries of Western Europe, has two main axes:

- a drastic policy of sobriety in energy and natural resources (fairly well developed in "Factor 4", even if it is a little dated) of which we can see more or less the main lines (zero or negative growth, circular economy, demography to be reviewed , lifestyle to evolve, etc.)

- a very rapid exit from carbon-based energies, which leaves little choice for alternative energies, all in an economic context which will leave little room for maneuver. It is deadly to wait for the end of fossil fuels, man being perfectly capable of making the little game of last reserves last for more than a century ...

It is clear that without the first axis, my position on nuclear no longer makes any sense, its development then only serving to extend the deadline by a few decades ...

My proposals on this nuclear issue logically only concern France and the countries that are comparable to it in terms of energy and technological development (but that makes a good package!); other countries have such a situation that they can find other sources of carbon-free energy (hydroelectricity, geothermal energy, wind "trade winds", etc.), it would be necessary to make a detailed analysis ... But it is another debate (interesting).

Incidentally, I have no link with EDF (outside my meter) or Areva; I am not an atomic engineer either (a profession that I respect however) and have no action in uranium mines (nor any action at all, for that matter).
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Fessenheim, the nuclear power plant is 30 years old!




by Ahmed » 03/02/18, 18:33

I don't question your good faith, Bardal and thank you for your clarification.
These call for a few remarks.
You write:
a drastic policy of sobriety in energy and natural resources (fairly well developed in "Factor 4", even if it is a little dated) of which we can see more or less the broad outlines (zero or negative growth, circular economy, demography to be reviewed, lifestyle to evolve, etc.)

And you then specify on this subject:
It is clear that without the first axis, my position on nuclear no longer makes any sense, its development then only serving to extend the deadline by a few decades ...

All energy policies from all sides proclaim this rhetorical creed, although intended for an opposite purpose ... : roll:
You understand that this is a bit embarrassing ... Vice is appropriately adorned with virtue and frankly, how many would be willing to a radical change of life? How many, on the contrary, are ready to turn a blind eye to the rationing imposed on impoverished countries to maintain their comfort (according to the standards in force)?
What is the energy transition, if not the major idea of ​​changing the supply of energy to continue as before on the essential and what is the motivation to do it, if not the fear of losing the "advantages" * that it provides?

* This parenthesis means that alongside undeniable advantages, there are many losses (both external and internal) ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."

 


  • 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 248 guests