C moa wrote:And in 2050, we will have fusion reactors so we can dismantle the wind turbines that spoil the landscape !! By then we will have hopefully also solved the cold fusion ....
uh wait ... who that, "us", and "we"? you mean you come here to promote nuclear? well you will be received!
in 2050 the nuclear reactors will all have been shut down for a long time, one of the old ones will have already fired like Chernobyl if it is not 2, because this French etchnology will have been poorly translated into Chinese or Hindu, and everyone will be against ...
+ seriously:
According to you, a CET has "a little bit" to do with a Biogas installation, but it's not the same, that's all, there is no recovery of biogas or fertilizer.
question: can a TEC receive nuclear waste? in the case of recovered gas, can they mix, to give what?
wastewater treatment plants are expensive and stink. biogas and fertilizers are not valued either (at their fair value, I mean).
when you say that there is not only good in organic I answer: if, precisely the biogas (not of fossil origin) is to be recovered, not to let evaporate wasted. this would drastically reduce the greenhouse effects, which give us, by the way, a disgusting time (temperature but also rising humidity, clouds etc.).
> you say CH4 21 times worse than CO2, on what criteria?
like I said, burning CH4 gives H20 and little CO2.
as you say the flares of the CET burn biogas, it is a waste without name.
> you say "use mother nature's gas with a turbine, a boiler": just by a boiler? an example ?
> You see, Quebec chose neither the CET nor the STEP: it chose a Biogas installation, the thread of the subject, you are completely irrelevant, that's what I was saying; well, more precisely you are trying to resell a prehistoric installation, of which I will be curious to have a financial balance sheet in relation to the valuation of raw materials ... sorry to take it like that, but I do not see what you bring to better than a biogas installation ...
a CET is aerobic, even at 10m thick it is not anaerobic, and the performance is + only mediocre, we say that the difference is waterproofing. right?
moreover, as you say, anaerobic methanization is much faster, this is the major advantage of this technology unlike the CET, which can even be activated with enzymes (septic tank type).
no a natural product is no less effective than a chemical product in terms of fertilizer, it is propaganda to say that, without any basis in + ... especially that the doses only did that increase, normal for a soil which is chemically treated and which serves only as a substrate. you're only reasoning in NPK quantity I'm talking about quality, would you say that a producer who chose intensive would have better quality? well no.
I don't see what a sniffer plane is.
to continue your controversy on nuclear energy (...) I see that you are giving data that is supposed to reassure the reader, so that's why I see that you are a specialist who uses figures, we agree. however, you make me (us) laugh when you say that "inspections are carried out, and as soon as there is a problem, we stop": haha, we don't stop like that already, then, how come have there been so many accidents then? how is it that ASn allows sites like SOCATRI to be operated alros that problems had already been reported?
So sorry I would like to believe you but experience shows the opposite, it would have taken zero defects for this technology to be accepted by the public, which is not the case. I can see your remark "there was an earthquake, normally nonexistent, and we did nothing, we continued as if nothing had happened": great, I can see the seriousness; If you read the quote correctly, the earthquake occurred in 2006.
for your 4 reactors, "On their own, they supply electricity to nearly half of North-West France,
Center to Brittany "which leaves a lot of room for wind turbines, especially on the coast.
source:
http://prestataires-nucleaire.edf.com/d ... i_id=71687
in fact, it takes 40 years to dismantle a plant. who will pay ? is it the same for wind turbines?
on the loire there is water, as it is already polluted by the power stations and other factories, one has only to put electric dams. I don't see why a natural cause will receive more nuclear power plants than wind power! the cooling chimneys of the 4 power plants have been lowered, but this still pollutes the low environment +: logical, no?
I no longer want to talk about nuclear on this wire nor about wind turbines, I ask the moderators and the WEBMASTER.
your remark about suicides is ridiculous and disrespectful. Cmoa, I see that many agree to "discuss with you" on certain points, which are erroneous to you.