Nuclear safety in France is not perfect ... Ah well?

[Flytox]

Ce

"Justified chorus of Dedeleco"

has a fundamental problem: I am the only one to say it, not even the thoroughbred ecologists, nor the greens, nor GreenPeace, nor econology, ....

Why do we feel like you're pulling the blanket "a bit"

[dedeleco]

Who uses the word infallible or perpetual infallibility ???
You can use this basic argument from infallible nuclear supermans in perpetuity !!
I find that very convincing, at least for me, scientist, but I am the only one to say it, not an environmentalist or green says that a Fukushima in France is inevitable sooner or later.

They use very soft sentences which implicitly accept that French nuclear power is safe, with a hypothetical risk to be discussed, by participating in the analysis of possible risks, while reality always has more imagination than all security specialists, doing the impossible for our brains, making it seem like chasing after improvements is enough, like with those 2 to 10 billion more.

[chatelot16]

nuclear is a big hot potato for any government

we can't stop it immediately today! catastrophic lack of electricity

it is better not to stop all expenditure in the nuclear industry, and to invest everything in new energy, by letting the nuclear industry continue to save: that would be the direct route to the accident

We must therefore continue to manage the nuclear with maximum security and only stop building other

I'm afraid it's too late to stop Flamanville ... we really have to be sure that this is the last

and even require that this new new plant be offset by the shutdown of the oldest or the one that would require the most costs to be maintained in operation

[dedeleco]

Exact, but the Germans have the courage to cool the hot potato with big water, which will be hard for them, but less than for us with a Fukushima in France, inevitable sooner or later, which we have grazed in 60 years of nuclear power !!

You have to have the courage to admit reality !!!

[chatelot16]

the biggest mistake in france is to believe that we will continue to sell ... so to be credible continue with us

no ! you shouldn't sell any more!

[moinsdewatt]

well yes nuclear is too expensive

https://www.econologie.com/forums/sortir-du- ... 0-290.html

price of the epr of flamanville: 6millard euro
power 1 650 MW

6 Geuro / 1 MW = 650 euro / W

therefore the same construction price as photovoltaics ... except that with photovoltaics there are no operating costs, no risk, no waste, no security costs paid by the state ...

of course the photovoltaic does not work day and night ... but by calculating the nuclear well is soon an economic error

Nuke power plants operate at full capacity around 8000 h per year.

PV power plants operate at full capacity for an equivalent of 1000 to 1500 hours per year.

[Flytox]

it is better not to stop all expenditure in the nuclear industry, and to invest everything in new energy, by letting the nuclear industry continue to save: that would be the direct route to the accident

+1

you must therefore continue to manage the nuclear with maximum security and only Stop to build another

No, it is necessary to program the shutdown of all these mass extinction plants as quickly as possible, otherwise these irresponsible bands will always manage to extend the life of their apocalypse machines until .... the end of the deposits of 'uranium (50 years old), time to make 5 more Chernofukushima.

[stipe]

we can't stop it immediately today! catastrophic lack of electricity

it is better not to stop all expenditure in the nuclear industry, and to invest everything in new energy, by letting the nuclear industry continue to save: that would be the direct route to the accident

Stop everything immediately, I do not know many people who demand it, immediately stop the most dangerous reactors, it is doable, via real savings. see Japan, they soon have no more power plants in action. In one year they will have stopped everything.
It is only a question of political will, loby and a financial question.

We must therefore continue to manage the nuclear with maximum security and only stop building other

Maximum security does not guarantee that an accident will not happen. At best it will reduce the risk.
I heard this morning that the measures advocated by ASN should take 10 years to be applied in their entirety. It's been ten years waiting with a security inferior to the new ASN standards which still do not guarantee the 0 fault.
As dedeleco wisely and better than me, this option aims to ensure an accident sooner or later

I'm afraid it's too late to stop Flamanville ... we really have to be sure that this is the last

No, this site is not yet polluted on the 10zaine generations, it is possible to save it, it is not because it has already cost us an arm and a leg that we have to put our head there. If the state wants to snap money I have a more useful expense list at home
In terms of savings, all you have to do is finance this with the shutdown of Iter, it will make money to experiment with us DSLC type solutions for underground storage of solar thermal energy. ..

[netshaman]

Exactly and we could shut down power plants if most of the buildings were heated through this.
As for example in Holland or it is the tarmac roads which act as solar collectors.

[Gaston]

As for example in Holland or it is the tarmac roads which act as solar collectors.

To my knowledge, there are a 200m section which is equipped as a prototype
Unless you are aware of recent massive achievements