French microhydraulics in danger! Nuclear lobby and FNE

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
New topic Reply
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04




by pb2488 » 19/06/11, 16:25

Alain G wrote:
pb2488 wrote:
Alain G wrote:The reason for the fish is no koik!

In natural falls, fish cannot go up anyway, just sow them and the imprint is reversible!


With reasoning like this, we can also say to ourselves: Why reduce greenhouse gases ?, the climate is already changing naturally!

Where is the increase in greenhouse gases with a hydro dam ?????

I'm not saying that.
You say: "The fish is not a problem because there are already naturally impassable passages."
By analogy, I answer: "GHGs are not a problem, the climate is already changing naturally."
:? :?
For me, the reason for the fish is a valid reason. This is not "just any koik"

Alain G wrote:Start by answering my question before making a stupid comment like this :!:

Answer above !!!
0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:
The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "
Skin
Alain G
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3044
Registration: 03/10/08, 04:24
x 3




by Alain G » 19/06/11, 16:59

Bah! You are always faithful with your answers "any koik"!

Here in Quebec we know a lot about fish and dams so much criticized by many French people, the impact lasts only a few years and the fish is much more impacted by fertilizers released by arable land than by dams, without talk about the natives who overfish with salmon nets on the rivers preventing them from migrating to reproduce!

And what are the effects of chimneys from nuke power plants on the environment that release huge amounts of waste heat that have a huge effect on global warming?
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.
Criticism is good if added to some compliments.
Alain
Skin
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04




by pb2488 » 19/06/11, 17:07

Alain G wrote:And what are the effects of chimneys from nuke power plants on the environment that release huge amounts of waste heat that have a huge effect on global warming?
Figures and sources ?, please.
0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:

The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "
Skin
Alain G
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3044
Registration: 03/10/08, 04:24
x 3




by Alain G » 19/06/11, 17:09

pb2488 wrote:
Alain G wrote:And what are the effects of chimneys from nuke power plants on the environment that release huge amounts of waste heat that have a huge effect on global warming?
Figures and sources ?, please.


You always have the same answers!

Don't count on your government to produce it!
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.

Criticism is good if added to some compliments.

Alain
Skin
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79330
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11046




by Christophe » 19/06/11, 17:49

I leave you a little alone less than 2 hours and I see that it has heated to a rotting of the subject ...

pb2488 to say that it is useless to do it because the overall% is low it is really anything ...

Supplying 600 French people is far from being NOTHING!

Such reasoning can be valid when we want to have an impact on a system but not for energy (or other fields): any fossil or nuclear kWh not consumed is good, it is of benefit for future generations and the environment!

In other words: why dare to pretend that nuclear energy is fighting the greenhouse effect because overall it is false! The impact of nuclear power is ineffective with regard to the climate because its share is too low overall ...

pb2488 wrote:
Alain G wrote:And what are the effects of chimneys from nuke power plants on the environment that release huge amounts of waste heat that have a huge effect on global warming?
Figures and sources ?, please.


We already talked about it:

https://www.econologie.com/forums/centrale-n ... t8511.html
et
https://www.econologie.com/forums/vapeur-d-e ... t9250.html
Last edited by Christophe the 19 / 06 / 11, 18: 18, 1 edited once.
0 x
Skin
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 19/06/11, 18:08

pb2488 wrote:Is the game worth the effort in terms of the environmental impact?


Ask the peasants of Chernobyl and Fukushima, and you will see what they tell you about the environmental impact, they who cultivated medicinal herbs ... :frown:

And wham! Another thread refocused by Môsssieur pb2488. Pffff .....
Last edited by Obamot the 19 / 06 / 11, 18: 10, 1 edited once.
0 x
Skin
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79330
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11046




by Christophe » 19/06/11, 18:10

He has not yet seen the video of the day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN7yFxwxktI ou https://www.econologie.com/forums/post205751.html#205751 :?
0 x
Skin
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04




by pb2488 » 19/06/11, 18:19

Christophe wrote:[b] pb2488 to say that it is useless to do it because the overall% is low it is really anything ...
I could be wrong but for me 0.2% is not significant.
I do not see what it will change, except maybe finish screwing up small streams.

I remind you that you announced 35 fewer reactors, in the end ... 0,2% of the total annual consumption !!!
So I don't see what the nuclear lobby is doing in there?
0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:

The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "
Skin
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 19/06/11, 18:20

Well, if we talked a little about the real subject of this thread!

So perspectives WITHOUT

[Edit] I don't believe it ...

pb2488 wrote:I do not see what it will change, except maybe finish screwing up small streams.

Uh, and the nuke by rejecting unmeasured doses in all the rivers and water bodies of the world, it does not mess up the water by chance ...

No, but I dream ...

Take a trip to La Hague to measure the level of radioactivity in the ocean ... : Evil:

pb2488 wrote:So I don't see what the nuclear lobby is doing in there?


And hop, the return of denial ...
0 x
Skin
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04




by pb2488 » 19/06/11, 18:29

Obamot wrote:Well, if we talked a little about the real subject of this thread!
Personally, I only do that.

Obamot wrote:Uh, and the nuke by rejecting unmeasured doses in all the rivers and water bodies of the world, it does not mess up the water by chance ...
all the rivers and lakes in the world ??? Sources / figures, please

Obamot wrote:
pb2488 wrote:So I don't see what the nuclear lobby is doing in there?

And hop, the return of denial ...
No, rather common sense, I think.
First, nuclear power needs hydraulics for peaks, for example.
Secondly, we are talking about 0,2% of the total consumption: It is not significant, in my eyes.
0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:

The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "
Skin
 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message
New topic Reply

Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 337 guests