The nuclear KWH not expensive! True price of EDF nuclear?

[izentrop]

Think about the "antis"

despite the three major nuclear accidents recorded, nuclear energy has prevented approximately 1,84 million deaths worldwide in the period 1971-2009 https://www.notre-planete.info/actualit ... aire-deces

[Janic]

despite the three major nuclear accidents recorded, nuclear energy has prevented approximately 1,84 million deaths worldwide in the period 1971-2009 https://www.notre-planete.info/actualit ... death area

probably ordered by the nuclear industry (which I speak badly!)
Here's what a comment says:
▼ Amnesique the 13/06/2013 at 17:21
Report probably rigorously exact if only co2 is taken into account. Currently, the fuel used in power plants is not too expensive because it is stolen from African populations who are greatly polluted in the process. (we forget in the price the military interventions paid by the taxpayer and there we immediately have millions of deaths). Plants are also not too expensive to manufacture. If we do not take into account state aid.
What it costs AFTER is exorbitant, already it is impossible at present to completely dismantle a power plant. We have no idea how to do it. For waste, reprocessing is also overpriced. And then you have to manage for thousands of years highly toxic radioactive substances. If you take everything into account, nuclear power is not profitable at all.
When purchasing a power plant, it costs 3 million euros per MW. To this must be added the price of fuel, reprocessing and storage of waste. For almost the same amount we could have 16.000 Chinese solar panels, create artificial lakes opening water sports and fish farms. Part of its panels would deliver current directly to the network. The other part of the panels would be used to pump water high up. This water, via generators, would deliver current during the night. 1MW permanent production with peaks exceeding 2,5MW. The icing on the cake, with good energy management over time we can have, thanks to current spikes a free and non-polluting operation of our steelworks.
Only as I'm going to be called a utopian, nobody is going to take his calculator to check. On the other hand, the guy who thinks that nuclear concerns will find a solution, he is not a utopian.
Indeed, it is not enough to count the "dead" in the short term, but also those who will be for the millennia to come with its waste accumulating. Then the deaths avoided take a discourse that cannot be proved such as the claims that vaccines would prevent such a quantity of deaths, which is obviously unverifiable. However, if research were focused on better control of pollutants from fossil fuels, by providing sufficient funds, pollution would already be much less. Finally, they tend to confuse the aggravating effect with direct and exclusive mortality.

[Bardal]

despite the three major nuclear accidents recorded, nuclear energy has prevented approximately 1,84 million deaths worldwide in the period 1971-2009 https://www.notre-planete.info/actualit ... death area

probably ordered by the nuclear industry (which I speak badly!)
Here's what a comment says:
▼ Amnesique the 13/06/2013 at 17:21
Report probably rigorously exact if only co2 is taken into account. Currently, the fuel used in power plants is not too expensive because it is stolen from African populations who are greatly polluted in the process. (we forget in the price the military interventions paid by the taxpayer and there we immediately have millions of deaths). Plants are also not too expensive to manufacture. If we do not take into account state aid.
What it costs AFTER is exorbitant, already it is impossible at present to completely dismantle a power plant. We have no idea how to do it. For waste, reprocessing is also overpriced. And then you have to manage for thousands of years highly toxic radioactive substances. If you take everything into account, nuclear power is not profitable at all.
When purchasing a power plant, it costs 3 million euros per MW. To this must be added the price of fuel, reprocessing and storage of waste. For almost the same amount we could have 16.000 Chinese solar panels, create artificial lakes opening water sports and fish farms. Part of its panels would deliver current directly to the network. The other part of the panels would be used to pump water high up. This water, via generators, would deliver current during the night. 1MW permanent production with peaks exceeding 2,5MW. The icing on the cake, with good energy management over time we can have, thanks to current spikes a free and non-polluting operation of our steelworks.
Only as I'm going to be called a utopian, nobody is going to take his calculator to check. On the other hand, the guy who thinks that nuclear concerns will find a solution, he is not a utopian.
Indeed, it is not enough to count the "dead" in the short term, but also those who will be for the millennia to come with its waste accumulating. Then the deaths avoided take a discourse that cannot be proved such as the claims that vaccines would prevent such a quantity of deaths, which is obviously unverifiable. However, if research were focused on better control of pollutants from fossil fuels, by providing sufficient funds, pollution would already be much less. Finally, they tend to confuse the aggravating effect with direct and exclusive mortality.

And what a comment! We find all the clichés of the genre, unsupported of course:

- Uranium war with millions of deaths (which war? Where, and by whom?)
- nuclear subsidies (what subsidies? and how much?)
- the impossibility of dismantling the power stations (today, it borders on the thirties, without significant surprise)
- highly toxic waste that we do not know how to treat (do you know many of the victims?)
- the miraculous multiplication of PV panels, for a ridiculous price, with lakes with pedal boats and goldfish, which would empty at night; and with swans and beautiful swimmers ... wind, waking dreams, surely due to a damaged vaccine, aluminum ...

It's not utopia, it's childishness; no need to ask who is the author, it doesn't matter, it's the sum of fake news lying around at the moment ...

But it may be sponsored by the nuclear industry, it is so stupid and needy ...

On the other hand, if !, the deaths of coal or oil, we know them, in detail and for each year; the calculations are simple, alas ...

[sicetaitsimple]

Ah, I see that the initial enthusiasm for the LCOE has waned ... We come back to the basics, it's simpler ....

[Janic]

And what a comment! We find all the clichés of the genre, unsupported of course:

Unfortunately, in any speech there is the subjective (assuming that there can be the objective whatever the point of view expressed, since everyone defends his chapel)

- Uranium war with millions of deaths (which war? Where, and by whom?)

It is no longer a war in the Napoleonic sense, but an insidious war which does not give itself this name. Nuclear does not cause instant deaths, but has long-term effects on successive generations and is likely to affect hundreds of millions of people when the storage sites spread their poison in the water by runoff or radiation by cracks, over a few hundred thousand years.
Who remembers the temporary workers who worked in irradiated areas and who disappeared from the landscape of the victims, therefore not listed, at the cancers and leukemia which exploded around the power stations and which are, perhaps, better controlled at present. Who still remembers installation in an area without waiting for official authorization, etc.

- nuclear subsidies (what subsidies? and how much?)

These are not direct nuclear subsidies! We forget too easily that the State is the promoter of nuclear power by De Gaulle for its thermonuclear bomb, then by Giscard, with its conflicts of interest which would perhaps not pass anymore

- the impossibility of dismantling the power stations (today, it borders on the thirties, without significant surprise)

The weakly irradiated parts are dismantled to make road surfaces, for example, or are remelted but the hearts continue to pose problems of neutralization of their irradiation and whose residuals will also end up buried.

- highly toxic waste that we do not know how to treat (do you know many of the victims?)

To account for victims, an independent, truly independent account would be required and calculated on the hundreds of thousands of years to come, even though no one knows what will happen to it for the next century.

- the miraculous multiplication of PV panels, for a ridiculous price, with lakes with pedal boats and goldfish, which would empty at night; and with swans and beautiful swimmers ... wind, waking dreams, surely due to a damaged vaccine, aluminum ...

Cash investigation had shown that it was not waking dreams, but an unfortunate reality with abandoned sites, with reassuring radiation measures far from areas with strong irradiation, the flow of rainwater going into rivers neighbors or play kids and people walk every weekend without counting the fish caught and therefore irradiated too.

It's not utopia, it's childishness; no need to ask who is the author, it doesn't matter, it's the sum of fake news lying around at the moment ...

The fake news from the pronuclearers balance the game then!

But it may be sponsored by the nuclear industry, it is so stupid and needy ...

Not that stupid! All the industries on this earth sponsor works which seem independent (like the sponsors of the various sports which credit them with a favorable glance near the credulous populations). Now who better than the manufacturers concerned know the risks of their business and do not provide a solution when it is too expensive or endanger their business. For example asbestos, nanoparticles of all kinds, all industries combined!

On the other hand, if !, the deaths of coal or oil, we know them, in detail and for each year; the calculations are simple, alas ...

They can be calculated on side effects accumulated with other existing pathologies (except the specific case of workers in direct and prolonged contact like coal miners). [*]
If it took more than a century for the pathological role of asbestos to be recognized, the role of direct and indirect radiation will take another 50 years to be recognized at their real level of dangerousness including in the medical field such as cancer treatments for example. and of course all this not counted in terms of real cost since we cannot know this over the hundreds of thousands of years to come.

[*] the media (sponsored by big pharma) announce 12 to 18.000 deaths per year from the flu, while the very official INVS considers it only as un aggravating factor (and not as a direct cause) and the people who die each year from these flu are the elderly and younger people who are very fragile like the autoimmune.

[Bardal]

Well, if I understand correctly, you say "war" but it is not exactly a war, you say "subsidy" but it is not at all a subsidy (it is rather a hat of a dead general there 50 years), you talk about the impossibility of dismantling, but that's not it, for the victims of waste, they are not victims since we cannot calculate them over the next 100 years ... is could you one day speak clearly?

As for the lakes and the proliferation of PV panels, I think you made a mistake; otherwise what you say makes no sense ...

On the rest:

- we count very well the deaths of anthrax, whether direct or indirect (silicosis, radon-related cancers), it is even one of the sectors of public health that is best known; on the other hand, the Chinese dead are greatly undervalued, due to the concealment of the results. And we know very well statistically assess the effects of pollution linked to coal, on the other hand, it is impossible by name ...

- the dangers of asbestos have been known for a very long time (Plato already spoke of them a few centuries BC); England, and a few other countries had banned its use since the beginning of the 20th century; For us, it is the incomprehensible weight of the asbestos lobby that explains this delay in ignition until its ban, which is not linked to any particular scientific progress at that time.

Well, finally ... By your own admission, you belong to the anti-nuclear chapel ... I suspected a little, note ... Personally, I am an atheist, and I don't waste my time at recite litanies imposed by a religion; I prefer the somewhat rational debate ...

[Janic]

Well, if I understand correctly, you say "war"

Did I say war? Weird, weird, how strange! Ah yes, it is you who uses this term that I take back!

but it's not exactly a war, you say "subsidy" but it is not at all a subsidy (it is more like a hat of a general who died 50 years ago),

you take your interpretation for that of others. Without the general there would have been no bombs, nor plants to make plutonium and now we are led to believe that the bride was a virgin!

you talk about the impossibility of dismantling,

I said it was impossible to dismantle? Weird, weird, how strange! We have technical means (that's already it!) To dismantle any human achievement (with a small nuclear bomb it would be done quickly and well done ... well done for those around!), But what to do highly radioactive waste, that's where the rub is!

but that is not it, for the victims of waste, it is not victims since we cannot calculate them over the 100 years to come ... could you one day speak clearly?

You have your answer in your question: they are called potential victims based on a known situation. The first drums of radioactive waste were dumped in the oceans (to cool them in theory) and these broken drums went around the world, we do not know how besides, and nobody knows what were the consequences and everything else to match!

As for the lakes and the proliferation of PV panels, I think you made a mistake; otherwise what you say makes no sense ...

As your example made no sense, it makes an everywhere in theory because I was not talking about the beginning of your sentence but its end! wind, waking dreams,
and so:
Cash investigation had shown that it was not waking dreams, but an unfortunate reality

On the rest:
- we count very well the deaths of anthrax, whether direct or indirect (silicosis, radon-related cancers), it is even one of the sectors of public health that is best known; on the other hand, the Chinese dead are greatly undervalued, due to the concealment of the results. And we know very well statistically assess the effects of pollution linked to coal, on the other hand, it is impossible by name ...

It is not that simple! Not all miners died of silicosis, far from it, but tobacco + alcohol + coal dust: yes it does damage.

Nuclear: even low doses of radiation increases the risk of ...
https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/.../nuc ... tion-aug...
1.
Oct 21, 2015 - A study of more than 300.000 nuclear workers in France evaluated the link between doses of ionizing radiation and risk of cancer.
Epidemiological studies of workers in the nuclear industry ...
reseau-ramip.fr/.../04_RaMiP18_24nov2016_KlerviLeuraud_Pr_C3_A9sentation_20I...
1.
External irradiation: γ and neutron. • Medium to low doses: 80% of doses below 100 mSv. • High dose rate. Life Span Cohort Study followed since 1950 mortality + incidence study. 86 individuals with reconstituted dose. 611 deaths (50%) in 620. Study of the survivors of the ...


Radon - Environment | National Cancer Institute
http://www.e-cancer.fr ›Risk and protective factors› Environment
1.
March 29, 2017 - When radon seeps into an enclosed space (house, basement ...), radon can build up at high levels that can pose a health risk: it has been recognized as a definite carcinogen for humans by IARC, and it is the second risk factor for lung cancer.
By concentration! Radon regions are becoming better known and it is enough to no longer give permits to build and ventilate radon houses!

- the dangers of asbestos have been known for a very long time (Plato already spoke of them a few centuries BC); England, and a few other countries had banned its use since the beginning of the 20th century; For us, it is the incomprehensible weight of the asbestos lobby that explains this delay in ignition until its ban, which is not linked to any particular scientific progress at that time.

Indeed it is the weight of lobbies that are found everywhere where there is money to be made! We have known cancers for as long and even more, (referred to as crab), and we continue to pretend that it is only a fatality due to a virus, microbe and any other external reason, but not to lifestyle adopted individually or in groups ... and that kills more people than silicosis and radon combined.

Well, finally ... By your own admission, you belong to the anti-nuclear chapel ...

Belonging to a chapel no longer has anything to do with religion, it is a way of indicating common positions taken pro or anti anything!

I suspected it a little, notice ...

Oh, funny! I also suspected a little (and even a lot) that you belong to the pronuclear chapel.

Personally, I am a convinced atheist, and I don't waste my time reciting litanies imposed by a religion; I prefer the somewhat rational debate ...

Oh, again, the mass argument! There are anti atheists and pro religious as in all societies. What does religion do in this case?

[Christophe]

And what a comment! We find all the clichés of the genre, unsupported of course:
(...)
- the miraculous multiplication of PV panels, for a ridiculous price, with lakes with pedal boats and goldfish, which would empty at night; and with swans and beautiful swimmers ... wind, waking dreams, surely due to a damaged vaccine, aluminum ...

Why should pro nuclear (lobbyists) systematically despise (since your tone is just contemptuous there) and demean alternative solutions? What's this? The cash that makes you so contemptuous?

[Christophe]

since we cannot calculate them over the next 100 years ...

And even if we knew how to calculate them, the official figures would be biased !! Because it has always been like that with nuclear lobbyists!

Be honest with yourself!

It is recognized that the IAEA has exerted strong pressure to largely minimize the "official" deaths linked to Chernobyl ... since the official figure is a few dozen (less than 50) ... While other studies less evoke far from 1 million premature deaths (especially among the tens of thousands of military liquidators ... !!) see: https://www.econologie.com/tchernobyl-c ... ementales/

“According to a book published in 2010 by the New York Academy of Science and entitled“ Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment ”, there would have been 985 deaths which are attributable to this accident (000-1986), not counting the countless sick people and children born deficient and / or deformed. This book is the result of a study covering 5 articles written by Russian doctors and specialists who were at the heart of this drama and treated people. ”

Even EDF does everything to minimize occupational diseases linked to possible radiation (reduction of recognition times, massive use of subcontractors ...)

The WHO / IAEA link:

And not only with nuclear: health-pollution-prevention / l-oms-in-the-claw-des-lobbyists t15154.html

Etc etc etc ...

See or review:
https://www.econologie.com/tchernobyl-s ... le-verite/
https://www.econologie.com/tchernobyl-c ... ementales/
energies-fossil-nuclear / balance-of-cost-Chernobyl-cards-and-contamination-France-t10653.html

ps: here we are talking about the economic cost of nuclear power, not deaths. So if you want to relaunch the debate on the dead, it's here: energies-fossil-nuclear / dead-of-energies-fossil-nuclear-and-hydroelectric-t10669.html

[Bardal]

Bof ... We come back to the famous conspiracy theses ...

The problem in all of this: why should I not believe competent medical teams who have carried out long field studies and have made a reasoned and detailed report and that I should believe stakeholders without particular competence and having carried out no study ground?

At times, the theses of the international conspiracy singularly lack credibility ...