Germany in 2050 without nuclear

[Other]

Hello

To get out of nuclear power you have to prepare for it in advance, it's not like a coal or oil-fired thermal power plant, you shut down your dismantle and you pass the buldozer.
There is a long process which lasts for years and years an expensive process which must be taken into account when establishing the price of the kw of this production throughout the life of the central
And the person talks about it, a central office has a useful life, after what do we do? who pays during this time or she is in doramance which brings back nothing then the long years of storage of radioactive materials ...
Some multinational companies prefer to keep a polluting factory dormant. It is more economically profitable than cleaning up the land. .) often there is no road, this equipment arrived by plane in pieces or by boat.

For wind turbines what relieves me is that they install them close to homes, in places where the economic question, takes precedence over the dominance of the winds of the places easier to access for maintenance and near the electric lines. those going down to Vermont.
Whereas if we examine the most favorable places for the winds it is on the north coast of the wild places which disturbs practically nobody, but it is necessary an electric line which will cross the river and also the cost for the maintenance in distant wild region is high, it is always the profitability, the cost and the dollars which pass before the environment.

Andre

[Alain G]

I think that Canada should also consider leaving nuclear power, moreover, with energy savings (North Americans are very energy-hungry) it would be possible to do without this sector in the short term.

You are right for North Americans in general but Quebec has a good step ahead as well as California on certain points, our homes are the best isolated from the planet, electric cars were on the way to having a network of the most developed but I do not know if the project will continue under the new government but I presume that it is.

[Obamot]

Hello

To get out of nuclear power you have to prepare for it in advance, it's not like a coal or oil-fired thermal power plant, you shut down your dismantle and you pass the buldozer.
There is a long process which lasts for years and years an expensive process which must be taken into account when establishing the price of the kw of this production throughout the life of the central
And the person talks about it, a central office has a useful life, after what do we do? who pays during this time or she is in doramance which brings back nothing then the long years of storage of radioactive materials ...

It was not easy to understand, because the scenario is hardly credible, in the fifties, when we saw the destructive power of A-bombs, the civil authorities - motivated by the needs of industry - had enough quickly seen a means of replacing fossil fuels and a boon to ensure the myth of the security of energy supply in countries in the event of threat, war, or blackmail (and this over long periods not requiring storage excessive fuel). It is clear that the “environmental” deal did not count, the argument of the time said that nuclear was ecological compared to fossil fuels (whereas it would produce mios of deaths via low-dose irradiation after accidents level 7)

At the time, almost nobody spoke of thermal solar, which only offered civil outlets (!)
And atomic energy made it possible to restore the coat of arms of military nuclear power, by giving it what people thought was a virtue! We had put our finger in the gear.

Then, "After us the deluge", becoming the leitmotif, the rush began, without worrying about dismantling or waste (we would see that later ...) as the authorities and the populations were "confident", so they were invaded by propaganda going in this direction ... (the nuclear lobby being also composed of the bosses of the industry having big needs in electricity ...)
Thus, overconfidence, the urgent need for energy, geostrategic motivations, we forget that civilian nuclear power was (and still is) only in a permanent experimental state (proof of this is Chernobyl which was an "experiment" that went wrong, Fukushima which demonstrated that man did not master this energy, and dismantling, which we still do not know how to do, nor the storage of waste - coming from so much operation of power plants than dismantling - its duration is estimated at ... 30 years, no one wants to bear this cost!)
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9man ... %C3%A9aire

The depreciation provided for dismantling will never cover the costs, since we do not know exactly how much it costs. And then as Christophe rightly said, why dismantle since we don't know what to do with waste! Alas, I indeed think that in the absence of a technological discovery that is still unknown and unexpected: everything will stay put ad vitam eternam.
(agree with the rest)

[dedeleco]

Canada in addition to extreme cold in winter, has the real Canadian geothermal solar well on the surface functional since 2007 to heat itself in winter with the summer sun, without any pollution, CO2, radioactivity or any possible disaster, consuming nothing, this in perpetuity, local, simple, to
www.dlsc.ca

to install everywhere in Europe, in France, by improving the simplicity, and the price, adapted locally, this surface solar geothermal energy from Canadian well without heat pump, to put under all parking lots with solar thermal on our roofs.

[moinsdewatt]

.... Alas, I think indeed that in the absence of a technological discovery still unknown and unexpected: everything will remain on the spot ad vitam eternam.
(agree with the rest)

well the Germans disorganized their nuclear power plant of Würgassen which made 640 MW.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_n ... %BCrgassen

and in France we deny Chooz and SuperPhenix
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9man ... %C3%A9aire

If the Germans said they were going to lunge, they will do it.
They are Germans, they do what they say they will do.

[dedeleco]

other nuclear reactors are to be dismantled (definitively stopped in 2006):

the Superphénix sodium fast-heat neutron reactor at the Creys-Malville nuclear power plant,
the 3 oldest reactors at the Chinon nuclear power plant,
the 2 old reactors of the Saint-Laurent nuclear power plant,
the first reactor of the Bugey nuclear power plant,
the first reactor of the Chooz nuclear power plant.

The cost of the Superphénix operation was very high financially. The price of construction (ten billion francs for a forecast of four billion) and maintenance of Superphenix during its operation has been estimated at 40,5 billion French francs (6,2 billion euros) and the price of its dismantling was estimated at 16,5 billion French francs (2,5 billion euros): in the end the industrial experience was deemed costly, the possibility of "normal" industrial exploitation being disputed

The control unit contains five tonnes of plutonium and 5 tonnes of liquid sodium, which ignites spontaneously on contact with air when it is very hot, and explodes on contact with water producing hydrogen when it is in a quantity much lower than water (which is not the case in this type of reactor). Furthermore, we still do not know how to put out a fire of more than a few hundred kilograms of sodium. However "by burning, the liquid sodium forms on its surface a crust which prevents the fire from developing in depth and limits the heat radiation" which allows to approach and fight it unlike a hydrocarbon fire, for example 25.

As early as 1976, an EDF engineer - JP Pharabod - declared in Science et Vie (n ° 703, April 1976) that "it is not unreasonable to think that a serious accident occurring in Superphénix could kill over a million people ", Which sparked a lively controversy in France over the security of Superphenix

To dismantle but not dismantled much!

Big fundamental difference !!

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix

About 200 people are still working [When?] On the Creys-Malville site [ref. necessary] for the dismantling of the various structures and in particular of draining the sodium from the reactor vessel.
On May 10, 2011, the employees participated in a two-hour picket at the entrance to the site, followed by a general staff meeting to denounce degraded working conditions, a lack of staff, an organization of the site. unsuitable and a lack of financial recognition in the face of the technicality required to carry out the dismantling

A small leak of 20 tonnes of miraculous sodium:

On March 8, 1987, a leak of 20 tonnes of liquid sodium occurred in the nuclear fuel storage barrel10. This barrel is a cylindrical tank where the spent fuel is allowed to cool for a certain time, awaiting transfer either to the core or to the outside11. This leak was due to poorly chosen steel, resulting in cracking of welded areas and sodium leakage, an incident classified at level 2 of the INES scale

And it is better the economic crisis, against blow of research of mad growth, than a sodium fire with a Fukushima in France !!

[moinsdewatt]

Getting out of nuclear power: the bill is swelling in Germany

15 Oct 2012 Le Figaro

The inflation of the cost of electricity is causing a lively debate within the government coalition.

The euphoria of the "energy revolution" will have subsided in eighteen months across the Rhine. Widely welcomed in Germany, the exit from nuclear power decided by Angela Merkel in spring 2011, in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, is turning into a political puzzle. The explosion of costs linked to the abandonment of atomic energy is causing growing skepticism and could cost the Chancellor very dearly in the middle of an election year when critics flare up against her plan to convert to green energies.

On Monday, the main power grid operators in Germany announced an increase of almost 50% in the tax paid by German consumers to support the development of green energies. An increase which corresponds for a household of three people consuming 3 kilowatt hours per year to an additional expense of around 500 euros, or a total of 60 euros. "It is obvious that companies cannot compensate for the significant use of the regulated share of energy prices and are forced to pass them on to customers," said Hildegard Müller, director of the Federation BDEW in a press release.

Nervousness of elected officials of all stripes
In the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the German government decided to shut down the eight oldest atomic power plants and speed up the shutdown of the remaining reactors. Acclaimed when it was announced, the exit from nuclear power - scheduled for 2022 - now makes the Germans tick. According to an Emnid poll published on Sunday, some 53% of Germans - against three quarters in spring 2011 - still support the "energy shift" of the chancellor. But 77% of voters consider it "very important" that the cost of energy remains "payable".

Less than a year before the elections, the project is causing nervousness among elected officials of all stripes, who are asking the government to review its copy. The question divides even within the center-right coalition in power. The Liberal Party (FDP) notably wants a reduction in public subsidies and an in-depth reform of the legislation on renewable energies. "Electricity must not become a luxury product," warns Michael Fuchs, a Conservative MP, who stresses the need for a broad consensus on abandoning nuclear power. As for the opposition, it accuses the government of letting consumers bear the consequences of the abandonment of nuclear power alone, Berlin having exempted heavy industry, which is particularly energy-hungry, from the payment of tariffs for the use of networks and electricity. 'green energy.

Objective: 80% renewable by 2050
Faced with growing criticism, German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier warned in the popular daily Bild on Monday: "It is certain that the energy change, which we all want and want to succeed, will not be free. " The Germans already pay more than most of their European neighbors for electricity: 24 cents / kWh against 13 cents in France and 14 cents in Great Britain. And the costs will be higher and higher as the government has decided to increase the proportion of renewable energy from 40% in 2020 to 80% in 2050, when it amounts to almost a quarter of production currently. Analysts estimate the cost of investments to reach these ambitions at 300 billion euros. Germany must in particular develop the networks to transport renewable energy, produced in the north of the country, in the south where industries are concentrated.

The increase is all the worse for households as some 700 companies benefit from an exemption or lower charges to maintain their competitiveness. "The cost of renewables for consumers and industries has reached an unsustainable level", according to Karl Ludwig Kley, boss of the German federation of the chemical industry, which pays the tax ... A level all the more unsustainable as the country is still threatened by cuts this winter, when consumption reaches its peak.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/environnement/20 ... emagne.php

[BobFuck]

Fabulous this article

http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 60481.html

[Flytox]

Getting out of nuclear power: the bill is swelling in Germany

15 Oct 2012 Le Figaro

The inflation of the cost of electricity is causing a lively debate within the government coalition.

The euphoria of the "energy revolution" will have subsided in eighteen months across the Rhine. Widely welcomed in Germany, the exit from nuclear power decided by Angela Merkel in spring 2011, in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, is turning into a political puzzle. The explosion of costs linked to the abandonment of atomic energy is causing growing skepticism and could cost the Chancellor very dearly in the middle of an election year when critics flare up against her plan to convert to green energies.

On Monday, the main power grid operators in Germany announced an increase of almost 50% in the tax paid by German consumers to support the development of green energies. An increase which corresponds for a household of three people consuming 3 kilowatt hours per year to an additional expense of around 500 euros, or a total of 60 euros. "It is obvious that companies cannot compensate for the significant use of the regulated share of energy prices and are forced to pass them on to customers," said Hildegard Müller, director of the Federation BDEW in a press release.

Nervousness of elected officials of all stripes
In the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the German government decided to shut down the eight oldest atomic power plants and speed up the shutdown of the remaining reactors. Acclaimed when it was announced, the exit from nuclear power - scheduled for 2022 - now makes the Germans tick. According to an Emnid poll published on Sunday, some 53% of Germans - against three quarters in spring 2011 - still support the "energy shift" of the chancellor. But 77% of voters consider it "very important" that the cost of energy remains "payable".

Less than a year before the elections, the project is causing nervousness among elected officials of all stripes, who are asking the government to review its copy. The question divides even within the center-right coalition in power. The Liberal Party (FDP) notably wants a reduction in public subsidies and an in-depth reform of the legislation on renewable energies. "Electricity must not become a luxury product," warns Michael Fuchs, a Conservative MP, who stresses the need for a broad consensus on abandoning nuclear power. As for the opposition, it accuses the government of letting consumers bear the consequences of the abandonment of nuclear power alone, Berlin having exempted heavy industry, which is particularly energy-hungry, from the payment of tariffs for the use of networks and electricity. 'green energy.

Objective: 80% renewable by 2050
Faced with growing criticism, German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier warned in the popular daily Bild on Monday: "It is certain that the energy change, which we all want and want to succeed, will not be free. " The Germans already pay more than most of their European neighbors for electricity: 24 cents / kWh against 13 cents in France and 14 cents in Great Britain. And the costs will be higher and higher as the government has decided to increase the proportion of renewable energy from 40% in 2020 to 80% in 2050, when it amounts to almost a quarter of production currently. Analysts estimate the cost of investments to reach these ambitions at 300 billion euros. Germany must in particular develop the networks to transport renewable energy, produced in the north of the country, in the south where industries are concentrated.

The increase is all the worse for households as some 700 companies benefit from an exemption or lower charges to maintain their competitiveness. "The cost of renewables for consumers and industries has reached an unsustainable level", according to Karl Ludwig Kley, boss of the German federation of the chemical industry, which pays the tax ... A level all the more unsustainable as the country is still threatened by cuts this winter, when consumption reaches its peak.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/environnement/20 ... emagne.php

It speaks of price, of who pays full price, of "consensus" to leave the nuke, of passage to the renewable, state of heart of policies etc ....... but it fails to evoke la essential fact of the problem, we must organize energy savings / fight against waste etc ... so that it has a chance to work without shaking the economy too much.

The Germans at least made part of the course ..... we are still on the starting line and we look behind us Ha! Our decision-makers love it, our nuclear impasse of another age ....

[dedeleco]

Especially since nuclear power in France and elsewhere is like a motorist, who drives without any insurance, who bet that he will never have a big accident, inevitable sooner or later, and who will have to pay to pay huge sums that he has not, if that happens, what will put France in total bankruptcy.

The Germans are more realistic than us, even if it is difficult, to avoid disaster.