Areva nuclear energy debate

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: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Areva nuclear energy debate




by Christophe » 15/05/08, 14:02

Alternatives, the magazine of the Areva group, has indeed launched a platform for dialogue http://www.parlonsen.areva.com , which wishes to tackle key questions around nuclear energy, around three complementary logics:

- reference information, to identify the challenges;
- a variety of expert views for training;
- a space for free discussion, to exchange and form one's opinion.

This operation lasts three months:

- a month of discussions on the place of nuclear power in the face of new energy.
- two months of discussions on the risks, constraints and solutions of waste treatment and recycling.

Two subjects which deserve, to form its judgment, to mix information and free discussion. Areva opens a new stage in the dialogue with Internet users, with a site resolutely adopting good web 2.0 practices.

A restitution phase of the discussions is planned at the end of this period.

A trailer is available at the following address: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5etx3 ... -parlonsen


We can reasonably guess without much difficulty, the outcome of this "debate": nuclear is necessarily and will be for a long time to be the best energy ...

Not bad the commercial oxymoron "recyclable energy" ... : Mrgreen: the worst is that the pro nuclear "officials" interviewed seem sincere when they talk about "sustainable nuclear" ...
Last edited by Christophe the 15 / 05 / 08, 14: 22, 1 edited once.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 15/05/08, 14:11

My opinion of econologist: at the present time of technology (fission), nuclear energy will remain, on a world scale in terms of primary energy, a marginal energy simply because of the limited fuel resources.

See
https://www.econologie.com/la-consommati ... -3282.html
et
https://www.econologie.com/emissions-de- ... -3761.html

Its impact on the greenhouse effect which, it is a global problem, is and will therefore be for decades to come extremely reduced or even zero because it will not prevent the exhaustion of fossil resources ... on the contrary it will quickly boost industrial growth, particularly in China. Its impact will therefore be NEGATIVE on the greenhouse effect.

We could therefore even deduce that the arguments of the nuclear pro on the greenhouse effect are therefore obsolete. But this is their only environmental argument nowadays ...

Obviously it is the current profits of the fission which will finance, I hope, the merger in the medium-long term ... we are not there yet ...
0 x
martien007
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 565
Registration: 25/03/08, 00:28
Location: planet Mars




by martien007 » 15/05/08, 17:20

Its impact on the greenhouse effect which, it is a global problem, is and will therefore be for decades to come extremely reduced or even zero because it will not prevent the exhaustion of fossil resources ... on the contrary it will quickly boost industrial growth, particularly in China. Its impact will therefore be NEGATIVE on the greenhouse effect.


In China, it would be good to be wary of earthquakes to come because there are hydraulic dams that have been weakened this time! (heard radio this morning).

For the moment their nuclear power plants are in the South and far enough from the epicenter of the last earthquake, but who knows if the next one will not be more South? not even seismologists know this.

They put them too seaside, the risk is a small tsunami. : Evil:
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 15/05/08, 21:20

Interesting your analysis, Christophe:
Its impact on the greenhouse effect which, it is a global problem, is and will therefore be for the decades to come extreme reduced, see zero because it will not prevent the exhaustion of fossil resources ... on the contrary it will quickly boost industrial growth, particularly in China. Its impact will therefore be NEGATIVE on the greenhouse effect.

It is exactly the same as I do with mega projects of solar power plants or other large units operating on the basis of renewable energy. Of course, from the point of view of the dangerousness linked to nuclear power, this would be a big step forward. The fact remains that massive and centralized energy production does not, on the contrary, regulate the prerequisite, which is the reduction of consumption.
The basic question is therefore not how to generate electricity but why. If it is to make objects with a carefully limited or useless lifespan ...
You have to stop moving the problems and start solving them.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 15/05/08, 23:00

Hello everyone,

On Areva, well it's pro nuclear lobbying ... Here is AREVA's vision:
- a left eyecup, fission (now)
- a right eye, the breeder (tomorrow)
- the merger right (but very far) ahead (à la saint glin glin).

It's very nice, it's interesting for the moment in CO2 emissions and energy independence for France ... It's less attractive in radioactive waste storage centers.

In addition, we can do better (power X10 or X100) and perfectly clean from today.

For Ahmed and more generally the supporters reduction in energy consumption: for each individual, it is possible, but it’s perfectly impossible globally.

It is indeed impossible for emerging powers such as India, China and South America to restrict themselves and block their development.

It is impossible that the world population will not grow by several billion in 50 years.

So we have to get out of clean and renewable gigawatt galore ... And no salvation outside of concentrated thermodynamic solar in hot countries.

@+
0 x
Image
econel22
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 3
Registration: 05/06/08, 17:24




by econel22 » 09/06/08, 16:54

We could therefore even deduce that the arguments of the nuclear pro on the greenhouse effect are therefore obsolete. But this is their only environmental argument nowadays ...


Hello,

I research the arguments of nuclear pro for ecology, is it really the only one?
I posted a message on the forum concerned by nuclear, but maybe this question has already been dealt with on the site ... if so, could someone tell me the link, because I can't find one ...? ?: D

thank you !!
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 09/06/08, 17:10

If you find others tell me ...

Obviously they will say that the power of nuclear power is incomparable to that of renewable energies, but that is not really a purely "environmental" argument.

By visiting the Areva site you will certainly find a lot of men ... uh "green" arguments : Mrgreen:
0 x
georges100
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 338
Registration: 25/05/08, 16:51
x 1




by georges100 » 09/06/08, 17:21

areva .....
I am wrong where it is the box where the "scientist" recycled himself who told us that the Chernobyl cloud had been careful not to vilo our borders ????? :D
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 09/06/08, 17:34

no that was a certain ... sarkozy : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:
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 258 guests