Nuclear waste

[Ahmed]

I believe that the wording of Janic is not inappropriate, when he writes:

be like the wealthy countries big users of electricity ... and their mind blowing.

It is clear that the Western model arouses, because of its psychic hegemony, a strong mimetic rivalry, this although it is not generalizable, since it rests on the extractivism practiced against the peripheral countries.

[sen-no-sen]

Bad examples: the use of accident-causing cars is linked to a lack of respect for the rules at the individual level, with certainly a collective impact, but which will be limited to the case of the injured person and stop there, no impact on millions of years and of individuals to come and the car must not be buried 500m below earth to avoid another accident. And even less for domestic accidents, it's ridiculous!

We count in the 1,3 million deaths per year on the roads in the world for around 20 to 30 million wounded; that is to say as much as the results of the Iraqi and Syrian war over 10 years ...
Nuclear, civil and military activity is anecdotal in comparison *.
Nuclear power is like sharks, the slightest shark attack makes the media headlines (the same goes for wolves) whereas these are insignificant events (shark attacks not nuclear disasters).
Comparing nuclear and oil is like comparing shark attacks with anopheles stings (the mosquito vector of malaria), we do not play in the same category ... but the media do not remember that.
The shark attack is much more anxiety-provoking (and media!) Than that of the mosquito,Steven Spielberg would have been very hard to be successful with a film about mosquito attacks!

Given the outrageous use of black gold and its ability to saturate all aspects of life (we make T-shirts like rocket fuel with, including fertilizers!) It is actually not possible to compare it with nuclear activity which can only be used overall to produce heat or rays to heal or kill.

It remains to be seen, in a completely nuclear scenario how world events would unfold, would there be supply wars?
Would the consequences in terms of rejection be as harmful in ecological and health terms as fossil fuels?
Difficult to answer ... but already in terms of agriculture one thing is certain: we will not sprinkle plutonium on corn to make them grow faster!
There would also be no acid rain, no anthropogenic global warming (there would be significant GHG emissions, but not sufficient to induce a threshold effect) etc ...

However, this is simply a theoretical reasoning, because causally fossil fuels had to be mastered before nuclear power, which brings us to the current situation ...


* But the number of victims would be the same if the vehicles were powered by electricity ... nuclear or renewable, so it is basically a problem of energy dissipation and no energy source.

[Janic]

But everything that is done by man is done for industrial, economic, political and social reasons; even what claims to be ecology.

Not quite ! Industrial achievements follow ideologies! Nuclear was developed for a war ideology, not to provide electrical energy to people. This thermal "waste" having become economical only for the justification of the first.

What a strange conception of our condition ... So the Egyptians would just like to "blow our eyes"? Do you really think that the peoples of the south have no right to electricity (for example), should not ask (and solve) the question of access to energy? Yes, a strange position.

One does not prevent the other ! We produced, for example and among other things, the concorde (superb technological achievement for that matter) to make eye contact with other nations, (our usual cocorico), while this device only concerned fricked people who were not within a few hours.
New record with 4,1 billion passengers worldwide ...
http://www.air-journal.fr ›News
Jan 19, 2018 - A new record 4,1 billion passengers were carried by the aviation industry on scheduled flights in 2017, according to figures .... so that all countries have the opportunity to benefit from doubling of flight and passenger volumes planned for the next 15 years ». and electric planes are not for tomorrow!

and your vision of the automobile seems to me singularly microscopic. 65 million individual behaviors, it's basically a collective phenomenon,

Inevitably, but one should not confuse the cumulation of individual behaviors, with its effects, and the imposition on a whole population of ultra hazardous waste which is a political decision.

especially when we measure the weight of the social image of this machine, and what it entails. 35 million cars means 3500 deaths a year, more than 10 seriously injured,

Likewise, most accidents are linked to breaking laws such as speed limits, drinking and driving and many individual behaviors. preventable.

emissions of various pollutants much higher than that produced by electricity

Only pollution with petroleum or diesel type hydrocarbons which have only been developed because of their low cost! Hydroelectric production hardly causes deaths and as long as there is water on this earth, it will be possible to provide electricity safe future on populations. The nuke has almost stopped the hydroelectric expansion.

(with a few hundred additional deaths to the key), these are major regional developments, a huge production industry, colossal imports of hydrocarbons ... And that would come down to an individual problem !!! You dream or what.

See above

But it's still very practical to move around ...

Yes, and that is why the question is not ready to be resolved.
Many people who traveled by bicycle for short journeys, barely 40 years ago, now use a car for the same purpose, and unfortunately also to give full sight to colleagues, friends! Many of these people (and it is verified on the psychological and physiological level) and especially on low incomes deprive themselves on the essentials (food) to have the last ipod, the last TV, the car (the food budget is spent from 40% of income to 14% (7% in America!) in 50 years to be able to afford the rest.)

Note, I could have marked train or plane, the figures would have been a little different, but the reasoning would have been the same, and my conclusion identical ... But I'm sure you would have found a way to tell me that time where we were traveling on donkeys, accidents were less serious ...

Partly of course! Our era has become feverish where you have to go fast, faster and faster (car manufacturers boast of more than 300km / h (speed that their buyers would not dare and could not reach elsewhere) for motorways limited to 130 and maybe 120). The planes, the TGV participate in this energy-consuming madness (the latter having facilitated the degradation of other networks), the production rates have increased (producing more in less time) and creating burn over and consumption of drugs and associated suicides.
as for CO2, we should already start by not destroying forests, wetlands, which naturally store them, as well as avoiding the high human concentrations in cities without vegetation too.

ps stop thinking about these nuclear horrors that are buried 500 meters away, you're going to make yourself sick ...

No risk ! I am willingly a realistic pessimist in order to have good surprises from time to time which do not totally despair of humanity. And nuclear is part of this realism!
So if we bury his shit at 500m, it's that it stinks seriously!

[Bardal]

Contrary to what you seem to believe, hydroelectric production has produced many more victims than nuclear, for equal production ...

Yet this is only one of the aspects, because the disadvantages and damage to the environment are more and more badly supported by the populations concerned, not to mention the more serious consequences, and less anticipated at the launch of the projects. So you have not read what sen-no-sen wrote a few posts above. Definitely, it is not easy to progress in a discussion with you ...

[Janic]

Contrary to what you seem to believe, hydroelectric production has produced many more victims than nuclear, for equal production ...

They drowned?

Yet this is only one of the aspects, because the disadvantages and damage to the environment are more and more badly supported by the populations concerned, not to mention the more serious consequences, and less anticipated at the launch of the projects. So you have not read what sen-no-sen wrote a few posts above. Definitely, it is not easy to progress in a discussion with you ...

because you reason in mega dams like that of Aswan, while the solution is micro / pico hydraulics at the scale of cities, villages, individuals.
http://www.japprends-lenergie.fr/ressou ... l-de-l-eau
Pollution
Run-of-river plants do not produce CO₂ emissions, polluting discharges or waste.

[sen-no-sen]

because you reason in mega dams like that of Aswan, while the solution is micro / pico hydraulics at the scale of cities, villages, individuals.

Small dams are not to be outdone when it comes to upsetting the ecological balance of a watercourse, in particular by preventing migratory species from spawning.

Now there are water mills which do not have its drawbacks because of their limited space, but can we only compare its last witnesses of a sober era, which served the need of an entire village, to their rehabilitation by individuals for their personal use?
It goes without saying also that such devices cannot be extrapolated to countries populated by millions of energy-consuming inhabitants ...

Development ENR on an industrial scale should calm a bunch of environmentalists, to say there are now more anti-wind demonstrations than anti nuclear.

Overall the anti-nuclear discourse as it is worn today is quite hypocritical, it is not a question of questioning lifestyles, but rather of finding alternatives to the perpetuation of it by modes of psychically more acceptable productions ...

[Janic]

Small dams are not to be outdone when it comes to upsetting the ecological balance of a watercourse, in particular by preventing migratory species from spawning.

It is no longer the case with the reserved passages, but here as for the rest there is no quick fix, even lighting with a candle is not the solution either

Now there are water mills which do not have its drawbacks because of their limited space, but can we only compare its last witnesses of a sober era, which served the need of an entire village, to their rehabilitation by individuals for their personal use?

It is one solution among others!

It goes without saying also that such devices cannot be extrapolated to countries populated by millions of energy-consuming inhabitants ...

It's obvious ! It is when our societies come up against the wall that the solution will come up on its own: mammoth hunting!

The development of RES on an industrial scale should calm a bunch of environmentalists, to say that there are now more anti-wind demonstrations than anti-nuclear.

The reasons are not in relation to the energy itself, but to the "disfigurement" of the landscape by the fields of wind turbines, but buildings, churches, a city, power lines do the same and nobody complains hardly any more, whereas they. disfigure the landscape too, but people got used to it.

Overall the anti-nuclear discourse as it is worn today is quite hypocritical, it is not a question of questioning lifestyles, but rather of finding alternatives to the perpetuation of it by modes of psychically more acceptable productions.

Absolutely ! If nuclear power had not spun heaps of cash to local officials, the reaction of the populations would have been much stronger. Would we have accepted a power station on Ile Seguin in Paris? No more than wind turbines, but horrible towers at Place de la Défense: yes!

[sen-no-sen]

The reasons are not in relation to the energy itself, but to the "disfigurement" of the landscape by the fields of wind turbines, but buildings, churches, a city, power lines do the same and nobody complains hardly any more, whereas they. disfigure the landscape too, but people got used to it.

I do not think that the cathedral of Strasbourg disfigures the landscape ... by cons 4000 wind turbines (3MW) and 180m high (about what it takes to replace a nuclear power plant) it is not the same thing ... but at least it makes a visual reminder of the origin of our energy.
In large numbers the wind farms are not without consequences on the avifauna, in particular on the raptors ... in any case as I try to repeat it any production of energy irreparably causes consequences on the ecosystems, directly or indirectly .

[Ahmed]

Overall, the anti-nuclear discourse as it is worn today is quite hypocritical, it is not a question of questioning lifestyles, but rather of finding alternatives to the sustainability of this one by psychically more acceptable modes of production ...

Here is an admirable sentence in its conciseness ... (the additional commas and small corrections are mine! ).

Another disadvantage of small dams is the disturbance of the flow of sediments and the modifications that this entails for aquatic life in general (and not only directly fish). It is sometimes possible to minimize this damage, but it is often at the cost of very heavy adjustments.

Janic, you write:

It's obvious ! It is when our societies come up against the wall that the solution will come up on its own: mammoth hunting!

Shit! There are no more mammoths! It's really bad luck!

Sen-no-sen, you write:

... in any case, as I try to repeat, any production of energy has irreparable consequences for ecosystems, directly or indirectly.

Indeed, it is the industrial dimension which multiplies the consequences and you are right to add "indirectly", because assuming an energy which would be devoid of production defects, this would not be the case for its uses (since the energy is used to act on the world and therefore to modify it).

[sen-no-sen]

Indeed, it is the industrial dimension which multiplies the consequences and you are right to add "indirectly", because assuming an energy which would be devoid of production defects, this would not be the case for its uses (since the energy is used to act on the world and therefore to modify it).

Since it is the hydraulic quarter of an hour, I would like to take this opportunity to add that the retreat of the beaches is one of the consequences (among others) of the construction of dams.
A large part of the sand on our beaches comes from the erosion of mountain ranges ... apart from the receding of the beaches with indirect consequences in terms of the release of greenhouse effect, in particular by the Herculean forces put in place by the municipalities to limit erosion (riprap, re-silting via bottom dredger, natural or artificial barriers) and by the destruction of buildings located too close to the banks, which requires rehousing, therefore reconstructions ...
... And the construction industry is very fond of sand! So much so that we should reach "a sand peak" in the years to come !!!

Sand, an endangered resource

Sand, omnipresent in our daily life, is the victim of the looting of a colossal industry, ever more voracious.
Soon a shortage of sand?

Few of us realize this, but sand is the third most used resource, after air and water.
It represents around 200 daily uses, ranging from water filtration to the manufacture of microprocessors used in the composition of our high-tech products. Sand is also transformed into glass, it is one of the main uses.

https://www.consoglobe.com/le-sable-une-ressource-en-voie-de-disparition-cg

Coluche had been right! "The technocrats, if we gave them the Sahara, in five years they would have to buy sand elsewhere."