Financial fascism and green growth, Solidarité Progrès

[Capt_Maloche]

I agree on that, he may be a good speaker and a fine politician, but technically he's a ball,

moreover I am not sure that it is well advised

[minguinhirigue]

He follows a little the advice of his mentor, Lyndon Larouche ... an economist who indeed has fairly fair opinions on many points ...

As for energy density, in a growing world I agree, it must increase: increase productivity per individual, allow an increase in the production of consumer goods, allow exploration of approximately wider (oceans, spaces ...). But what must grow is not primary energy, but final energy ... There is therefore room for "growth" possible simply by improving the efficiency of our installations.

There is no obligation to use fossil fuels to ensure energy density, but ultimately all the needs covered by fossils must be replaced by other devices ... There the technicians who use them inform believe that it cannot be done without nuclear ... Oops, it is not a fossil fuel !?

What bothers me about their remarks is that the combination of their humanist and productivist ideas is only viable in a stable world: in a-growth... Except they are from the generation progress, they swear by progress, headlong rush ...

They advocate values ​​of sharing and social and economic equity, but in my opinion, they cannot get out of the forward racing model that we have imposed on ourselves ...

[Remundo]

Hello everybody,

By the way, to put the ideas in place of the Nukleofans

http://travail-chomage.site.voila.fr/en ... ranium.htm

it will calm even the biggest heads of Areva ... luckily the infinitely strategic people of the CEA are working on ITER ...

PS: oops, the deuterium resource is even more tenuous than uranium and tritium does not exist naturally (luckily for us) ... and fast neutrons are not confined by the magnetic field

[Capt_Maloche]

Interesting that!



By the way, how many Kw.h on the meter can we extract from one kg of uranium?

How many m3 of earth must be stirred to extract 1kg of uranium

[Christophe]

Maloche, it's good because I see this kind of curve that I (like others) assimilate uranium to a FOSSIL resource ... even if it doesn't appeal to everyone!

For the "yield", good question Maloche, I do not have the precise data in mind but it depends on the reactor technology used (and surely its load).

I'll look. By finding the consumption of French uranium over a year, we should have an idea. What is certain is that it is not that huge (a reactor produces several tons of nuclear waste per year).

For the number of m3, it will be much harder to find ... it must vary greatly depending on the deposits ... I do not believe that the PAC on nuclear pollution in France had given the value.

https://www.econologie.com/forums/la-france- ... t7045.html

[Remundo]

There will be peak-uranium as there is currently peak-oil.

If the French model of the electricity mix were generalized worldwide, it would take place very quickly (less than 10 years).

For the energy produced by 1 kg of uranium, take the fission energy (thermal) and roughly divided by 2,6.

This calorific value is of the order of 80 GJ / g of U235, or 80 GJ (gigajoule) / kg.

by comparison, 1 kg of Diesel gives 45 Megajoule, ie 1 times less.

So much for the pink face of nuclear power.

The black side is really black ... Because there is a great opacity:
- on the energy consumption of the sector: ore extraction, transfer, purification, enrichment, then production of specific fuels such as MOX (an alloy mainly of oxides of U238 and U235).
- on the energy costs of dismantling power plants
- on the dangerousness of waste and its storage: humanity has committed itself over millions of years with the nuke ... A bit as if you left your children a loan of 10 years ...

In fact, the cleanest and most abundant energy is quite simply solar radiation, which comes from the thermonuclear fusion of the sun.

I personally think that when all of its energy costs (ore, transport, fuel fabrication) are taken into account, the nuke sector probably achieves the efficiency of a diesel engine (35%) ... Nothing to boast about when you know the type of waste it produces and the pernicious entanglement with nuclear weapons ... I still prefer CO2.

[Christophe]

This calorific value is of the order of 80 GJ / g of U235, or 80 GJ (gigajoule) / kg.

by comparison, 1 kg of Diesel gives 45 Megajoule, ie 1 times less.

Ah thank you Raymond, you were faster than me!

Uh "stupid" question: in a reactor fuel rod does 100% of the uranium end up "cracking" (shit we say how ??? )? I mean, is there a% Uranium that cannot be used?

[Remundo]

Hi Christopher,

There are two types of civilian fuels,

Weakly enriched natural uranium (3%): it is U235 which is fissionable (we try to attack it with "thermal" neutrons)

And the "Metal Oxide" which is a mixture of 6 to 7% Pu239 with depleted uranium U238 (here, Pu239 is the fissile).

We never manage to crack all the fissile nuclei ... There are neutron leaks, purely thermal capture, and also capture by fertile elements: this is how MOX appeared because U238 is fertile and becomes Pu239 which is fissile ...

In any case, nuclear fuel is never "burnt out", and it takes expensive and complex operations to get it out of the reactor and reprocess it.

But the guys from CEA love it: scientifically, it's very interesting ecologically, I will not say the same ...

[Christophe]

Ah yes the famous Mox that the green ones do not want (without valid reason since apparently it would improve things according to you and allows the recycling of military Pu) ...

But that does not answer the question: on 1 kg of nuclear fuel, how much can not (or can) be exploited in a reactor of average French type?

It is around%, ten ... more?

[Capt_Maloche]

I found other figures here: http://www.vertetnet.fr/mod/le-saviez-v ... harbon-,78

1 kg of natural uranium provides 12 times more heat than 500 kg of coal.

In fact, 1 kg of coal provides by burning 8 kWh while uranium supplies 100 kWh in a current power station. Nuclear power is therefore by far a much more concentrated form of energy.

Source: Energy booklet, CEA, 2002.