Jancovici the Senate (actual cost of French nuclear kWh)

[Christophe]

It is going well here so say!

So I completed the title!

[bamboo]

Yes OK. Bein there are some who row (like Iran) and it's still much easier when the country has a central.
Because you must not make me believe that they need their enrichment plant (s) to make civilian nuclear ... This is all the more so as Russia has offered to offer them combustible ... hey hey ...

Precisely, this entity of which you speak is not a central but a factory enrichment (vocabulary is important in our debate http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrichissement_de_l%27uranium ). The proof that we can enrich without a nuclear power plant ...

[Christophe]

There is enrichment (of Uranium) and "manufacture" of military nuclear fuel (Plutonium) from uranium and necessarily requiring a reactor and subsequent enrichment ...

So there is civil enrichment and nuclear enrichment ...

During the trinity project there were, I believe, 3 nuclear reactors which "turned" but none has ever produced an electric kWh ...

[Remundo]

In addition, it has been a long time since we almost need plutonium to make a bomb: above all, we need a lot of light nuclei (deuterium, tritium) to make H bombs.

it is not at all the same technology and fission bombs are easier to master, especially in their critical mass version by rustic contacting 2 sub-critical masses.

Besides, to initiate a thermonuclear fusion, militarily, only fission is reliable for the moment.

Compared to Christophe's remark, indeed, some installations have an exclusive purpose of transmutation (very often U238 to Pu239), and can even consume a lot of electrical energy, in particular to obtain fast neutron fluxes.

[Christophe]

Uh and for the initial question / answer (real price of nucleo-Gallic kWh?) ???? Always nothing???

[Cuicui]

to initiate a thermonuclear fusion, on the military level, only fission is reliable for the moment.

Magnetic necking initiated by conventional explosive replaces fission, reducing maintenance and allowing miniaturization (alas).

[Remundo]

Insofar as :
1) the price of one, 10 or 1000 human lives is not quantifiable,
2) just like that of 10 km² of cultivable agricultural land
3) or 1 or 2 centuries of cooling in the pool for irradiated MOX
4) or 10 years of "management" of HAVL waste,

I logically think that the price of a nuclear kWh is not quantifiable apart from the direct and short-term costs currently billed , to know :
- prospecting and extraction of ore,
- physicochemical treatment for enrichment,
- nuclear power plant + electrical transmission network,
- a little reprocessing (to recover the U235 and Pu239, holy fissile nuclei, and hide the rest of the dust under the carpet)

To know also that the nuclear energy "circuit" is supplied by cheap hydrocarbon energies (nuclear is essentially a mining and chemical-industrial activity), and whether for ore stocks or hydrocarbon stocks, there is never any depreciation charge included in the cost of kWh: that is to say that everyone pays one kWh as if resources were inexhaustible and free, because you never pay the price of the resource or the consequence of its use, but only that of its extraction / routing.

To conclude: nuclear, like fossil hydrocarbons, is part of an intense socio-economic-environmental dumping (not quantifiable!), i.e. the complete negation of the approach to sustainable development ...

@+

[Did67]

That's what I was trying to say ! But you said it so much better!

In the field of "cost" or "profitability", wasted effort. No discussion possible. We can make data say anything. And Janco never hides from being a Polytechnician, so "he knows" ... He never writes or says it like that, but his smirk says so much about the way of thinking.

On another thread, I had reported seeing, just after Fukushima, a debate on a German TNT channel where the "macro-energy" expert from the Merkel government (therefore from the "straight line") arrived to the conclusion diagonally opposite to that of Janco, while reasoning on the basis of macro data like him: by rapidly exiting nuclear power, by the 2025 horizon, Germany would have a macroeconomic advantage over its competitors who do not not !

So for him, the German “exit nuclear” policy was not at all a green idea, but macroeconomic evidence!

[Obamot]

Yes, it is really very well synthesized Remundo

So for him, the German “exit nuclear” policy was not at all a green idea, but macroeconomic evidence!

Germans are green at heart, but above all "pragmatisch"

As soon as the two requirements meet ...

On the other hand, this autism on nuclear power, even in university circles, shows why it is so difficult to collect "real costs" and especially "exact figures".

Try to see if you find what it is:
- the production of global electric energy in PET (relative to the operating cost up to the end user)? *
- the share allocated to the production of electrical energy of nuclear origin in PET (relative to the operating cost up to the end user)? *

And if you find these figures, my little finger tells me that they would be biased anyway, in particular because:

A) de facto the same criteria would not be taken into account for the calculations;

B) countries such as Ukraine, Belarus, Japan, England and the United States, all affected to varying degrees by reactor meltdown disasters, would be tempted to take into account some costs related to these disasters (but they would certainly differ from one state to another, in particular for questions of national pride ...?)

C) there is no global harmonization on the methods of calculating real costs, in particular by the fact that ...

D) As an example - I would just take the example of Niger - or two operators of uranium mines, such as SOMAÏR and / or COMINAK, do not give the same figures and are not based on the same criteria. Which means that those who compile statistics receive incomparable figures and therefore false ... While they are both sectors of the AREVA group, hey hey ..

E) This would require complex calculations concerning "associated waste", since part of the figures relating to nuclear costs should include: a significant share of fossil fuel consumption, as for the enrichment of uranium (at Nigeria, etc ... as much coal as petroleum), to which must be added more than 10 m000 of petroleum as fuel for mining machinery and vehicles! Etc. Producing one tonne of uranium would require 9,7 tonnes of oil equivalent, not counting the energy required for coal extraction, production and on-site transport of consumables used: sulfur (11 t), cement (768 t), sodium chloride (5 t ), sodium carbonate (160 t), ammonium nitrate (3 t), magnesia (799 t), explosives (2 t), caustic soda (955 t), etc. The energy balance is not provided in the SOMAÏR 1 report, but it is probably not as good as that of COMINAK since the uranium content of the ores extracted by SOMAÏR is much lower (487 kg of uranium per tonne of ore against 637 for COMINAK). (Source: ...> )

E) This would require seeing, accepting and taking into account all the problems reported by Remundo (and a few others ...);

F) The IAEA is the WHO, are a little, a lot, too much (?) At the behest of the nuclear industry ... (and that they also interfere in the military) ... So that this whole system should be reformed even in the universities ...


I good?

* TEP = Tonnes Oil Equivalent.

PS: to be correct, it must also be said that if we leave nuclear power, it is not to enter a new era of coal, which also releases pollution ... nuclear power (in addition to the rest).

[Obamot]

NB: the figures given by way of example in the letter "E)" are taken from the link, and do not concern the whole mining operation, but that two uranium deposits ... It would therefore be necessary to know the production of these mines, and multiply these figures in PET, to get to know the figures worldwide ...
And of course, in the costs of nuclear, bring in the real price of uranium as it SHOULD be paid to the states from which it is extracted (and not the price it is sold by its stock market listing, and which disregards the "Natural renewal of exploited resources" => which is not the case for all the other mineral resources of the globe ... But that's yet another story in the "global approach" of the problems ...)