Energy: nothing presses

The developments of forums and the site. Humor and conviviality between the members of the forum - Tout est anything - Presentation of new registered members Relaxation, free time, leisure, sports, vacations, passions ... What do you do with your free time? Forum exchanges on our passions, activities, leisure ... creative or recreational! Publish your ads. Classifieds, cyber-actions and petitions, interesting sites, calendar, events, fairs, exhibitions, local initiatives, association activities .... No purely commercial advertising please.
Dearcham
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 105
Registration: 29/10/03, 23:55




by Dearcham » 04/11/03, 14:50

Here is the article of the week by Mr Allègre published in the Express and titled as this post.

"The fact that we produced 80% of our energy using nuclear power plants is the source of our energy independence and our prosperity.Without nuclear power, we would have spent in the two Gulf crises nearly 500 billion In addition, nuclear power is the only source of energy that does not contribute to increasing the CO2 of the atmosphere, ie the greenhouse effect, which allows us to adopt the posture of lessons on the Kyoto Protocol, so more than ever, we need to reinforce and reaffirm this option.


The Germans abandoned it. Heavy mistake. Despite pressure from the Greens, the French government has never yielded. I bet that in Germany any majority, as soon as it no longer needs Grünen, will come back to this absurd decision.


But it must be added that, while nuclear energy is now superior to other energy sources, it is not perfect. It remains the problem of radioactive waste, some of which will remain active more than 1 million years. We must therefore take serious precautions to avoid contaminating future generations. And to say that, even if we have avoided the absurd storage of waste at great depth, current devices are not without risks, despite all the progress that has been made in the reprocessing and containment industry.


In this context, what about a national debate on energy and what urgent decisions should be made? The government must decide, on the one hand, to engage or not in the EPR program and, on the other hand, to finance or not the majority of the Iter project of research on the merger, which would then settle in Cadarache, in Provence. Let's say it bluntly: there is no urgency, because energy in France is not a current issue. Our nuclear power plants can run up to 2040. It was planned for them a duration of thirty years, but, with the experiment, their wear is weak. They can last sixty years. Since they are on average eighteen years old, calculate! The Americans today issue licenses for sixty years of operation of the plants. If you think it will take ten years to build a new park, any new decision can wait for 2020!


The EPR, pressurized water reactor, using a much more modern technology than the current reactors, security will be strengthened and efficiency increased. However, this will not be the solution to the waste problems that concern us: the EPR will produce almost as much long-lived waste as the current plants. Moreover, for it to be economically profitable, it would be necessary to build about fifteen copies, whereas France must launch only one, because of its overcapacity of production of energy. The argument of exporting is also obsolete, the needs of potential buyers, such as the Chinese, corresponding to plants much more powerful than the EPR. So you have to say no to the EPR! But do not do this during this or that meeting with the Greens, which would give the impression of a preconceived desire to abandon nuclear power. We do not play for reasons of political politics with the future of France!


We have an outstanding research organization in this country called the Atomic Energy Commission. This organization has, over time, been able to combine basic and applied research. Today, it is the only interlocutor respected by the Americans in nuclear matters. Let's help him develop the fourth-generation reactors, which he has been working on since 1998 and which provide energy without long-lived waste. Instead of reducing its budget, as is currently the case, give the CEA the means to carry out its task. I have no doubt that he will succeed in twenty years in solving the difficult problem of waste.


As for nuclear fusion, on paper, it is the solution to all "static" energy problems, since it produces no waste. But for thirty years, we have tried to domesticate it by the Tomawak process, without any decisive progress. Perseverance is sometimes rewarded. Should we, however, in a difficult budgetary context, while our energy independence is assured for forty years, fund the bulk of the Iter international program, while the richest Americans will contribute only at 10%? Again, it is urgent to wait. The fact of installing the experimental site at Cadarache would only be a booby trap. Let's hope that, at the moment when French research is strangled, where the departure of our researchers for foreigners are multiplying, we will not decide to build the EPR, which would be an insult to reason! "

allegre.express@ipgp.jussieu.fr
0 x
Dearcham
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 105
Registration: 29/10/03, 23:55




by Dearcham » 04/11/03, 15:10

Many things about it.
1-Nuclear power plants produce Also emissions of CO2 even if the quantities are small, compared to a coal-fired power station.

2-The German Government is forced to respond to some pressure from the Greens because they are representative of a majority of the population (yes, talk a little with the Germans you will see they are much more aware than the " French means "about it -cf doc- Arte-

3-The problem of Uranium is of course that of waste management (and their elimination because we can not just be content to wait kindly they deign to decompose for thousands of years) but many other things come into play: the dangerousness of the installations (I do not remember the name of the French power plant, placed in the south in the middle of an area with strong seismic activity), the fuel problem also, because if we We know that at the current rate of consumption we have about sixty years of hydrocarbon reserves, we know less that the reserves of uranium leave us scarcely more than 50 years.

In this case why good god to get into an energy policy that is already recognized as obsolete? The argument that rebuilds a fleet from 2020 is just as bad since we will have nothing to supply to these plants!

"Developing the EPR, pressurized water reactor Financing the Iter fusion research project There is no urgency: our nuclear power plants can run until 2040" This is not the caricature but the sub title written in huge beside the column of redaction.

In these conditions I do not understand why debates on energy took place at great expense TV presenter, ministers from all sides (no, not Bachelot). At the end of debates that seemed promising to me on renewable energies at the Vilette. The Green deputy Mr Cochin had conlut in this way, interviewed by a journalist: "This debate is just puppet since we all know that the power plants have a life expectancy of up to 2030 minimum ... The government is once again demonstrating an unbounded demagoguery ".
Why debate with Force Lesguy, Field, commissions of inquiry if it is not to take account. This report, available at the city of Sciences Vilette yet shows the danger of waiting for the last minute to deal with the energy problem!
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 04/11/03, 20:07

G not all read but I know what it's about ..... wait see that we pass the ZX test bench (expected before Christmas !!) .. and everything will be published on econology!
0 x

Go back to "The bistro: site life, leisure and relaxation, humor and conviviality and Classifieds"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 243 guests