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

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79118
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: The cheap nuclear KWH ?! True nuclear price EDF?




by Christophe » 23/02/18, 16:40

Still contempt ... CQFD ... : Cry:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The cheap nuclear KWH ?! True nuclear price EDF?




by Janic » 23/02/18, 18:03

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

After religion as a pretext that does not work, let us go for the conspiracy thesis also empty of meaning. Whenever a system feels endangered by whistleblowers, it can only be conspiracy, but obviously not the system itself. You confuse, it seems, conspiracy with the simple "discretion" of industrial or political decision-makers, that is to say that which does not appear in the public square and that certain specialized newspapers are happy to reveal , as well as more specialized whistleblowers.
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?

Should we believe what is directly or indirectly dependent on nuclear pro, where they want to be both judge and party?
Christophe points out to you the New York Academy of Sciences as a source presenting figures different from yours and you can only be conspirators according to you!
The New York Academy of Sciences is a learned society potentially open to any academic and bringing together twenty thousand scientists from all disciplines from one hundred and twenty countries. Wikipedia
1 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: The cheap nuclear KWH ?! True nuclear price EDF?




by sen-no-sen » 23/02/18, 19:08

Christophe wrote: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 were 985 deaths which are attributable to this accident (000-1986)


It looks like a count of demonstrators made by opposing observers.
It was 1500 according to the Police and 10 according to the unions! : Lol:

We have on one side the nuclear lobbies which counts 50 dead during the Chernobyl incident (!) ... and almost a million among the anti-nuclear!
This astronomical difference in the figures reflects the ideological nature of the debate.

According to WHO the Chernobyl catastrophe is said to have left 4000 dead, which is already more realistic.
In the hypothesis or the WHO would voluntarily minimize the figures, one would arrive anyway towards a balance sheet of 10 000 to 15000 XNUMX dead max, which is already enormous.
The exaggeration of the figures in one direction or the other generally serves un laudable interests ...

The Fukushima catastrophe should provide a much more objective encryption of the victims in the future, the current trend however seems to favor the low hypothesis.
1 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The cheap nuclear KWH ?! True nuclear price EDF?




by Janic » 23/02/18, 19:59

We have on one side the nuclear lobbies which counts 50 dead during the Chernobyl incident (!) ... and almost a million among the anti-nuclear!

Where does it appear that the New York Academy of Sciences is anti-nuclear?
This astronomical difference in the figures reflects the ideological nature of the debate.
According to the WHO the Chernobyl disaster would have left 4000 dead, this is already more realistic.
In the hypothesis or the WHO would voluntarily minimize the figures, one would arrive anyway towards a balance sheet of 10 000 to 15000 XNUMX dead max, which is already enormous.

It all depends on the criteria used! On the one hand there are the undoubted direct deaths by the signs presented. Then there are those affected but whose mortality, which can occur many years later, can no longer be counted as the main cause. It is like the flu where the average mortality is 2.000 / 3.000 deaths per year, but which can be considered as an aggravating factor and which, according to the pro or anti will be or not counted. However the flu is annual, the irradiation is for life ... or rather to death. To this must be added genetic damage with child mortality which will or will not be counted for the same reasons and the figures may then increase rapidly with successive generations depending on whether they are taken into account or not.
A must read "the crime of Chernobyl" to have a look from the inside.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: The cheap nuclear KWH ?! True nuclear price EDF?




by Bardal » 23/02/18, 20:19

The credibility of the figures cannot be reduced to a vague centrism between the two extremes. For ten years, I counted demonstrations (on a union basis, in Paris); in reality, the comparative unofficial General Intelligence figures and the unofficial union figures were most often very close; it was only afterwards, when announcing to the press, that the huge gaps appeared.

You can easily get back on your feet by consulting the methodologies used to count the victims of disasters; for Chernobyl, it goes up to 9 deaths advanced by some (including Corinne Lepage, the famous statistician). There is no study done by the New York Academy of Science (we don't see how they could have done it), there is only a compilation of all the texts that had appeared at that time, and that included everything and anything; the best as the worst; the New York Academy did not take sides, merely publishing these texts.

On the other hand, there is a "scientific consensus on the effects of Chernobyl" resulting from a major multidisciplinary study conducted by the WHO ( http://www.greenfacts.org/fr/tchernobyl/ ), perfectly documented and methodologically supported, and which leads to the figure of 49 direct deaths and 4000 potential deaths over the coming years. Personally, I cannot confuse the results of this study with the opinion of a talkative forum having no competence in this field and having carried out no study ... But if someone can convince me that a discussion of counter has as much value as a serious scientific study, I am ready to change view ...

Nota Bene: your use, Christophe, of the term "contemptuous" whenever someone disagrees with your theses is tiring; if the term was harmless, it wouldn't matter, but you use it to justify sanctions (no doubt a prelude to exclusion) without any other form of trial. It is quite astonishing to see people who claim freedom of expression and the noblest values ​​use such vile means to silence the deviants of your line; a real cult process, which deserves to be widely published on all forums that deal with these topics. I hope this is just a slip of the tongue, but I'm not sure ... Please reassure me ...
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: The cheap nuclear KWH ?! True nuclear price EDF?




by sen-no-sen » 23/02/18, 21:02

Janic wrote:It all depends on the criteria used! On the one hand there are the undoubted direct deaths by the signs presented. Then there are those affected but whose mortality, which can occur many years later, can no longer be counted as the main cause.


Indeed, but can we count the death by radiation of a 90 year old person? Perhaps she died 2 months later from natural causes.
According to Fukushima, the health authorities have detected around 400 cases of thyroid cancer attributable to the nuclear disaster in children, which leaves no doubt about the origin of the pathology.
We speak of premature death through statistical studies, this one showing a significant increase in the number of deaths following an incident.

bardal wrote:The credibility of the figures cannot be reduced to a vague centrism between the two extremes.


A vague centrism between the two extremes would give us something like 200 victims ...
Knowing that counting methods can always be taken into account, a model makes it possible to establish a range, at best.
Announced 4000 dead is only an approximation, this one can be lower as higher, question of parameters, all that matters is to have a representative encryption that is to say in this case something between 2000 and 15000 dead.

Historical examples such as the human toll of the Second World War demonstrate the great difficulty in determining precisely the number of victims during a catastrophic event.
1 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79118
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: The cheap nuclear KWH ?! True nuclear price EDF?




by Christophe » 23/02/18, 22:43

bardal wrote:Note Bene: your use, Christophe (...) I hope this is only a slip of the calami, but I'm not sure ... Please reassure me ...


You have nothing to hope for and I will not reassure you ... After the contempt there comes the defamation, threats and attempts to destabilize. But you know others have already tried: bistro / sect-the-econology-t641.html : Cheesy:

You can exclude yourself: trolls with victim speech ... we also know ...
0 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: The cheap nuclear KWH ?! True nuclear price EDF?




by Bardal » 24/02/18, 06:29

sen-no-sen wrote:
Janic wrote:It all depends on the criteria used! On the one hand there are the undoubted direct deaths by the signs presented. Then there are those affected but whose mortality, which can occur many years later, can no longer be counted as the main cause.


Indeed, but can we count the death by radiation of a 90 year old person? Perhaps she died 2 months later from natural causes.
According to Fukushima, the health authorities have detected around 400 cases of thyroid cancer attributable to the nuclear disaster in children, which leaves no doubt about the origin of the pathology.
We speak of premature death through statistical studies, this one showing a significant increase in the number of deaths following an incident.

bardal wrote:The credibility of the figures cannot be reduced to a vague centrism between the two extremes.


A vague centrism between the two extremes would give us something like 200 victims ...
Knowing that counting methods can always be taken into account, a model makes it possible to establish a range, at best.
Announced 4000 dead is only an approximation, this one can be lower as higher, question of parameters, all that matters is to have a representative encryption that is to say in this case something between 2000 and 15000 dead.

Historical examples such as the human toll of the Second World War demonstrate the great difficulty in determining precisely the number of victims during a catastrophic event.


We agree to establish a "fork" in these questions of statistics and probabilities; this is also what is done in any evaluation of this type (we speak of a confidence interval); on the other hand, a confidence interval which would be more important than the encryption itself (which is the case in your example 2000 - 15000 deaths), that poses a real problem of methodology: it is the advanced encryption itself which would become invalid...

In the case that interests us, this is a problem very well explained in this study: the scientists involved explain that they lack reliable models for this estimate, and that in the absence of a sure model, they take the theory the more pessimistic to advance this figure (the so-called "linear model without threshold") and that it will be necessary to continue the investigations on the duration, the subsequent epidemiological studies having to be able to confirm or invalidate the initial quantification. This is why they speak of "potential deaths" and not of "foreseeable deaths".

In fact, the later studies, effective today, gave rather surprising results, since the measured deaths are much lower than those which were suggested, and that this leads to a questioning, among scientists, of the "linear model". without threshold "; questioning confirmed by studies on naturally very radioactive sites. The consequences are enormous, particularly in terms of the decision to evacuate contaminated areas.

Conversely, a new pathology, not linked to radioactivity but linked to the evacuation itself, appears with symptoms of depression and passivity, of "victimhood"; the evacuated populations give up any desire to take their destiny back in hand and plunge into an attitude of waiting and passive despair. Paradoxically, the populations who have chosen to stay in a contaminated zone are in better health than those who have been evacuated. These findings are sufficiently dramatic for us to dwell on them at length, with all the necessary means.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The cheap nuclear KWH ?! True nuclear price EDF?




by Janic » 24/02/18, 09:31

janic wrote: it all depends on the criteria used! on the one hand there are the undisputed direct deaths by the signs present. then there are those affected but whose mortality, which can occur many years later, can no longer be counted as the main cause.

actually, but can we count the death by irradiation of a 90 year old person? perhaps she died 2 months later from natural causes.

This is exactly the argument of the flu vaccinists (interesting because it is repeated every year) who therefore consider that most deaths are elderly, so the flu is the cause of their mortality, while c is the vaccine that can be the cause or that the causes can be any other.
Only an in-depth autopsy, so in the case of irradiation too, would make it possible to really know the causes, which is not done and was not done obviously since it was the Soviet bloc where NGOs were filtered and inactive and even passive. As for the nuclear organisms, it was for them an excellent observation laboratory in real conditions.
according to fukushima, the health authorities have detected around 400 cases of thyroid cancer attributable to the nuclear disaster in children, which leaves no doubt about the origin of the pathology.
we speak of premature death through statistical studies, which reveal a significant increase in the number of deaths following an incident.
Pure Chernobyl, the sacrifices were sent to the 4 corners of the country, isolated from each other, on orders and not followed by the health authorities who were overwhelmed. So the indirect victims came either from fallout themselves close or distant (as in Corsica), from irradiated food absorbed by the populations, including the children (estimated at 500.000) living in irradiated zone which seriously increased the number of victims and not all of them were followed medically, but developed unusual pathologies in "normal" children. This is why, it is not possible to limit oneself to the identified deaths but to the victims in general with pathologies dependent on the rate of irradiation and the isotopes concerned.
Read all the crime of Chernobyl, an indictment of more than 700 pages which essentially concerns the pathologies which will ensue and which were poorly identified or simply denied.
Paradoxically, the populations who have chosen to stay in the contaminated area are in better health than those who have been evacuated. These findings are sufficiently dramatic that we dwell on them at length, with all the necessary means.
The populations that returned to the contaminated areas, which were not the original populations, were attracted by a whole bunch of structures that did not exist elsewhere, in an area with an irradiation rate that had already decreased: read the book in question!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: The cheap nuclear KWH ?! True nuclear price EDF?




by Bardal » 26/02/18, 07:18

Oh la la ... Come on, in order ...

- No, no thorough autopsy can, except in a few rare situations, determine the causes of cancer with certainty. On the other hand, in the event of collective exposure, as at Chernobyl, a statistical study easily highlights the impact of a phenomenon; of a flu epidemic also elsewhere. And indeed, the situation of Chernobyl was completely new for the organisms, not "nuclear", but of health, and made it possible to draw a certain number of lessons on the exposures to low doses of radioactivity. Incidentally, at that time, the USSR was no longer the "Soviet bloc", but a failed state incapable of "filtering the NGOs" ...

- the "sacrificed" (in reality the "liquidators", who intervened directly on the site) have not all disappeared, far from it (even if the rapid partition into 3 countries means that we have lost track of the majority), but the 200 who have been monitored already allow serious epidemiological studies. As for the indirect victims, they have been, globally and finely, studied, in particular children, for whom the WHO study provides all the figures (including 000 deaths). Everything you tell elsewhere (including Corsica) does not appear in any way on statistical studies: nothing in the measurements made authorizes to speak of a particular incidence of an attack affecting such or such region. Either you have done a study showing the opposite, and we must provide all of this, or it is only pure fantasies on your part ...

- the populations of the contaminated areas are those who refused to leave, not those who would have returned there; in the same way, the flora and fauna (which have not been evacuated them) have never been better than since man had given them peace ... No catastrophic decline, no appearance of monsters , no frightening changes, but a nature which takes back its rights ...

The catastrophic, even apocalyptic, speeches brandished by the anti-nuclear service have proved completely false, even inducing real errors very damaging for all the populations concerned. Faced with such a disaster, the worst attitude to have is to induce panic and catastrophism, ultimately adding to the number of victims due to the disaster itself. The irrational never helped in difficult situations ...
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 270 guests