Some truths about nuclear

[Remundo]

Astonishing also: hydraulics which gained 1% (especially in relative) which means the construction of new installations (except in the event of a fall in demand which I don't think) when we thought it was saturated for 30 years ...

There are a lot of totally unexploited sites, both in low fall and in high fall ...

I am well placed to know because I live in one of the less scabrous water towers of Franceles (compared to the Alps or the Pyrenees, the relief is softer and the facilities easier to install), namely the massif central.

The absolute increase in hydraulics can be well over 1%.

[loop]

Hello

Chatam wrote

Just for information, the last giant failure was caused by the lack of flow from the wind turbines (more wind) on a sector not very well meshed, which caused the collapse of the system by overload ... like what it does is not a panacea ...

Exact, the wind turbine poses problems in the absence of wind
If an anticyclone settles permanently on France, we can observe an absence of wind, but it also means that the depressions are near, on neighboring countries or at sea
It is not impossible that a European cover allows to have a constant potential of wind production, still it is necessary that there is a common will.

To return to nuclear power, you should know that restarting or slowing down a reactor requires a 24-hour delay and delicate and .... expensive operations!

It is obvious that if the priority of investments in heating is given to "toasters" and "money pumps" and "air conditioning", we are going straight into the wall.

No question of storing electricity for now, but storing heat, we know how to do it and there is, I think, a voice to dig in this direction. This would meet the development needs of solar.
It seems that chemically, we can create or absorb heat
If anyone has info.

A+

[Chatham]

I mean by that: it is not because the share of nuke is constant that it cannot be "quickly" lowered ... but if it is to replace it with Kohle or gas ... frankly blah ...

Astonishing also: hydraulics which gained 1% (especially in relative) which means the construction of new installations (except in the event of a fall in demand which I don't think) when we thought it was saturated for 30 years ...

In a German program I heard that the closure of a nuclear power plant is not on the agenda simply because there is no alternative, unless you increase dependence on with regard to the Russians ... and their gas ...
The additional part of hydroelectricity comes from micro-power stations because there are no large sites ... there is one under construction in Breisach am Rhein ...
Certain sites in France which would be "a priori" usable for reservoirs, are not because of geological problems (friable, unstable rock, active fractures, seismicity, etc ... as there have been previous accidents such as Bouzey and Malpasset, we have become cautious ...) or environmental opposition of the population or ecologists (eg the Loire) ... On the other hand it is certain that we can make micro power plants or even storage sites for energy (unfortunately very expensive but excellent performance) see eg. Lac Noir / Lac Blanc in Alsace: as many renewable energies have a very fluctuating production, this makes it possible to regulate production ...

[highfly-addict]

There are certainly sites that are "exploitable" in hydraulics.

It all depends on what we want for the future: personally, I want little laughing streams at the bottom of fresh valleys.

And not these dreadful buildings that constitute dams that annihilate the natural ecosystems of the watercourses on their site or completely disturb them upstream (species of fish from the reservoir, interrupted upstream-downstream circulation, etc.) only downstream (pollution, retention then massive release of sediments, artificial variations in flows totally incompatible with the ecosystems of origin, ...)!

As long as we continue to place man at the top of "creation", we will continue to do "aneries"! (with all due respect to these adorable and intelligent animals).

Edit: I didn't find a "presentation" section so I'm doing it here.

first of all, Bravo Christophe for this site!

Remundo and Pascal are my main "attractors" and I applaud them with both hands for their passion, their imagination and their personal investment. But let others not be jealous, I encourage them too!

Here, beginner econologist, my credo sums up pretty well with the conclusion of this post on dams.

[Chatham]

It all depends on what we want for the future: personally, I want little laughing streams at the bottom of fresh valleys.

Me too...


in some countries, it is easy to do things that have little impact, or even none, as in Norway: 1000m high plateau, abundant water resources, invisible underground factories, almost zero negative impact ... but we is not in Norway ... (In Canada there are also things of this kind although much less discreet at the Nigara falls ... rather positive impact since it greatly reduces erosion) ...

[Christophe]

As long as we continue to place man at the top of "creation", we will continue to do "aneries"! (with all due respect to these adorable and intelligent animals).

Welcome here.

I do not know if it is so much the man that should not be placed first that ... the money (at any cost) ... The man is still an extraordinary creature right? But she can also be the worst scoundrel ...

For dams, we have had eco-compatible alternatives for a long time ... fish elevator style ... It's less worse than nothing.

Have you seen the beautiful green? Otherwise, here are 2 extracts:

https://www.econologie.com/la-belle-vert ... -3670.html
https://www.econologie.com/stresse-en-vo ... -3666.html

[highfly-addict]

Man is still an extraordinary creature, right? But she can also be the worst scoundrel ...

For dams, we have had eco-compatible alternatives for a long time ... fish elevator style ... It's less worse than nothing.

Have you seen the beautiful green? Otherwise, here are 2 extracts:

https://www.econologie.com/la-belle-vert ... -3670.html
https://www.econologie.com/stresse-en-vo ... -3666.html

Yes Christophe, man is an extraordinary creature! But no more (in my opinion) than any of the other critters that inhabit our planet ....

It turns out that I was a “technical agent for aquatic environments” for a few years, so I am comfortable talking about the development of waterways. And I persist, the fish lifts and other ladders: what a joke! It just serves to give oneself a clear conscience in most cases, and to maintain "artificially" a fish population which anyway no longer has its place since it has been taken ....

But here we are completely HS, maybe we should open a subject above ....

Yes, I saw the beautiful green, beautiful film that I find imbued with "positive attitude": go, humanity is having its adolescent crisis, it will pass ..... .

Well, I don't really believe it, even in the long term, that's my opinion ...

[Christophe]

It just serves to give oneself a clear conscience in most cases, and to maintain "artificially" a fish population which anyway no longer has its place since it has been taken ....

But here we are completely HS, maybe we should open a subject above ....

Yes I support this idea but I don't know enough to prove it so a new subject is welcome indeed

[highfly-addict]

It all depends on what we want for the future: personally, I want little laughing streams at the bottom of fresh valleys.

Me too...


in some countries, it is easy to do things that have little impact, or even none, as in Norway: 1000m high plateau, abundant water resources, invisible underground factories, almost zero negative impact ... but we is not in Norway ... (In Canada there are also things of this kind although much less discreet at the Nigara falls ... rather positive impact since it greatly reduces erosion) ...

Ok Chatam, there are favorable sites .... But do you seriously think that reducing the natural erosion of a river has a positive impact?

I explain: A river permanently carries sediment torn from its bed or coming from its watershed which redeposits a little further. If we interrupt this process from time to time, erosion will resume all the more downstream by removing materials that have not been redeposited. We then observe a sinking of the bed until the solid flow regains its equilibrium with the liquid flow. (see for example the bridge piers downstream of structures)

Edit: to make it interesting, go here

[jonule]

it must not be forgotten ...

how was electricity produced before the plants?

by micro dams, for each town / village.

where did they go? "we" had to make them disappear, to set up the plants ... I'm tired of seeing that the question is asked again, because they should never have been removed.

no, they did not look at the landscape like the huge dams: we talk again about local production and on a scale ...