Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad 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 ...
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Remundo » 12/03/16, 16:26

precisely, for the price, the trajectory of nuclear is rather more expensive than that of renewables.
0 x
Image
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Christophe » 12/03/16, 16:32

Yes and this is the 2nd (or 3rd) nuclear "trap" ... and that the French "elites" still did not want to understand ...
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Obamot » 12/03/16, 17:22

The problems that I see above all is that:

- the price of nuclear kW · h is wrong, so people vote without knowing the real price;
- the figures should be checked, but according to a Swedish study, renewable energies on the whole have an efficiency between 18 and 30x better than nuclear (and even up to 70-85% for hydroelectric, but "deposits" are sold out everywhere);
- there is the "theoretical forgetting curve", we very quickly forget our "problems" even after deaths and catastrophes;
- "cold" polls therefore mean nothing, we should take polls made after nuclear disasters!
- all this means that we are in a society where the "triumph" of individualism reigns, even among owners who should be the first to step up to the plate (since they lose everything when their property is in contaminated areas), but there are fewer owners than citizens in total and neither one nor the other is responsible in the majority!

This is why we have elected politicians and created health authorities in order to protect us from ourselves. But they broke their oaths / contracts. These people should be in prison. If citizens acted, it would make a lot of people in prisons : Mrgreen:
Last edited by Obamot the 12 / 03 / 16, 17: 30, 2 edited once.
0 x
wibart
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 3
Registration: 24/01/14, 16:38
x 1

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by wibart » 12/03/16, 17:26

To get out of nuclear power, you must not think of the state but of yourself.
Instead of relying on others, we act on our own. How? 'Or' What ?
First, use the state aid for the 0% energy premium loan.
Install photovoltaic panels at home using a good installer discovered thanks to those who have taken the plunge (as I did and I therefore give ideas.), Change its heating, use the energy adapted to its region without listening the stupidities (the intermittent lighting above the wind turbines is radioactive, they kill thousands of birds all the wind turbines are noisy, they are awful worse than high-voltage pestles or nuclear power plants, we refuse progress). If everyone produces and saves we need less energy !!! Let’s avoid nuclear powered rechargeable electric cars. Real toyota hybrids are enough.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Christophe » 12/03/16, 18:02

Yes but there is simpler and which costs almost nothing: sign a GREEN contract ... but really green! (not the false green of most European suppliers).

At EnerCoop for example, I suggested it here after Fukushima: energies-fossil-nuclear / nuclear-Fukushima-and-a-sign contract-electricity-green-t10585.html

I did it personally at Energie2030 ...
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Did67 » 26/04/16, 15:07

On the sidelines of the "festivities" on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident, noted this box in an article published on the website of the newspaper Le Monde today:

The German example

Germany announced the end of civilian nuclear power in 2000. In 2010, Angela Merkel voted to extend the life of the nuclear reactors by 12 years, which supplied a quarter of German electricity (133 TWh).

After the Fukushima accident on March 11, 2011, the Chancellor changed her mind and announced the closure of the eight oldest reactors, built before 1981. In March, seven reactors were shut down, a few weeks after the disaster. from Fukushima.

Two months later, in May, the German government announced the closure of seventeen German nuclear power plants by 2022. A ninth reactor was closed in 2015, and a tenth will be shut down next year. However, none of the shutdown reactors was discharged from fuel or dismantled. They also remain the property of their operator.

Eight reactors remain in operation today, representing 16% of German electricity production.

To compensate for the production of the shutdown reactors, Germany invested massively in renewable energies, which last year covered a third of the energy across the Rhine. Contrary to popular belief, the coal sector has not exploded since 2011. Its share in electricity production remains high, but stable, falling from 44% in 2012 to 42% in 2015.


In : http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/art ... 55770.html

Surprised to read that the share of coal has not increased, contrary to what we read constantly. I have not checked.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Janic » 26/04/16, 15:42

clearly when we really want we can! Our François never hid that he was pro nuclear like his former half Ségolène, also pronuclear, despite certain parts of his speech.
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
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Remundo » 26/04/16, 16:46

Did67 wrote:Surprised to read that the share of coal has not increased, contrary to what we read constantly. I have not checked.

is that things are subtle,

there are indeed new coal installations, intended to compensate for major deficiencies coming from a renewable mix.

But in practice, this flame thermal is started less often to exploit the maximum of renewable energy possible.

So emphatic articles may speak of "coal explosion" in Germany, and at the same time the share of coal in electricity production may decrease ... The article should also speak of gas ...
0 x
Image
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Did67 » 26/04/16, 17:06

The question bothering me [it's not a bad word, nor nycthemère!], And having some apprehension about the bullshit that is being told on the internet [well, the newspaper Le Monde is not the main source of bullshit!], I did some research on "official" German sites:

https://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/ ... b=true.pdf

This first graph takes stock of primary energies (so not just electricity). From bottom to top, in the "bars", there is "coal", "lignite", "petroleum", "natural gases" [from the soil, mines - firedamp - and petroleum], "hydraulic , wind and PV "and finally" other "... Coal and lignite being at the bottom, we see that in fact, the share, after a slight rise in 2012, continued to fall and is effectively today in- below 2010.

With regard to electricity alone, the following graph summarizes the case:

http://strom-report.de/download/stromer ... utschland/

On the one hand, fossil energy, on the other, renewable energies. And indeed, fossil electricity is falling continuously and steadily [it includes coal, lignite, gas, oil ...]

Let's take a closer look at what's going on in terms of electricity from energy fossil :

http://strom-report.de/download/stromerzeugung-fossile/

- lignite (Braunkohle) rises slightly
- coal (Steinkohle) drops
- the sum of the two is almost stable (but does not decrease): 262 billion kWh in 2010 against 264 in 2014
- gas drops sharply [while Merkel is accused of crashing into Putin because of Russian gas!]
- nuclear power (very correctly classified in fossil fuels) drops from 145 to 97 ... So, Germany is far from being out of nuclear power, you have to know. The total exit is announced for 2022 (from memory).

So yes, except quibble knowing quibble, of the "drosophila sodomizer" type, Germany has considerably reduced its share of nuclear (roughly, 1/3 less) without increasing the share of coal / lignite in its mix.

The price to pay: a current much more expensive than with us. And so: a) the consumption drops !!! b) PV self-production is developing, especially in companies, because today, it is "profitable" ...

http://strom-report.de/strom-vergleich/

28,8 cents / kWh is the average price for consumers (individuals)
3,8 decrease between 2013 and 2014
26% = share of renewable energy

It is therefore possible!
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Did67 » 26/04/16, 17:10

Remundo wrote:
Did67 wrote:Surprised to read that the share of coal has not increased, contrary to what we read constantly. I have not checked.

is that things are subtle,

there are indeed new coal installations, intended to compensate for major deficiencies coming from a renewable mix.

But in practice, this flame thermal is started less often to exploit the maximum of renewable energy possible.

So emphatic articles may speak of "coal explosion" in Germany, and at the same time the share of coal in electricity production may decrease ... The article should also speak of gas ...


I wrote and researched while you posted.

I will be attentive in the future. Indeed, it is easy to do conjuring. On the one hand, an installed capacity which may be increasing (I did not check; it does not have any importance; it is not the capacity which "leads" the CO² balance!). But which is less and less used ... CQFD.

In any case, I will no longer be told that leaving nuclear power is necessarily at the cost of a leaded CO² balance following an increased use of lignite / coal! And we can put chimneys that smoke in the reports, this water vapor will not impress me!
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 223 guests