Nuclear: the disaster that changes everything (EC France2)

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: 79008
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10940

Nuclear: the disaster that changes everything (EC France2)




by Christophe » 28/04/11, 10:19

A further 10-day special nuclear investigation into the Fukushima disaster (which I missed, luckily P.Langlois reminds us), the documentary is available in stream and on Youtube:

Here are the links to watch an excellent documentary on French nuclear energy presented on France 2, on April 18, 2011, as part of the Complément d'études program, entitled “Nuclear: the catastrophe that changes everything”.

To watch again in stream here: http://info.france2.fr/complement-denqu ... brique=110

The report is also on YouTube in 7 videos. The third video deals with nuclear waste and the dismantling of a power plant (particularly interesting). The sixth video reveals the pitfalls set up in France to make life difficult for renewable energies through policies obviously framed by the nuclear lobby.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Fp1Cn9DhM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y9jW1jhBkQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fysP9Udo6Ag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcBhnQECPSQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh5hX3k4AQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1EPZXrR5jI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQp5vNwqV0g


See here: https://www.econologie.com/complement-d- ... -4354.html

I made it an easier to read playlist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Fp1Cn9 ... CB42BF2D33
Last edited by Christophe the 28 / 04 / 11, 20: 31, 1 edited once.
0 x
Addrelyn
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 166
Registration: 16/07/10, 11:28




by Addrelyn » 28/04/11, 11:09

As usual, journalists seek the scoop ... EDF explains things well and journalists make sarcasm, as usual.

A baby documentary, but at least it can be fun to scare.

Me it disgusts me as much nonsense.

80 tonnes of fissile material, more than the Hiroshima bomb ...
Except it's not just U235.
The mustachioed green, a great character!

Short
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15943
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5162




by Remundo » 28/04/11, 11:29

I saw this program, overall not too bad, but a bit superficial because many subjects are covered on short sequences.

However, interviews punctuate each report.

As she puts her finger where it bothers, these gentlemen who live on neutrons do everything to discredit her.

How to choose between?

1) The fundamentalists of the atom covered with diplomas?
2) anti-nuclear basics?

The second: they are quite right without having done a lot of scientific studies, and therefore saying a few nonsense ...

While the former use it to drown the fish and compromise the future, saying huge things ...

"everything is under control", "waste is under control" "oh yes, but that will not happen with our reactor design"

Anecdotally, on March 14, when the coriums were already giving worrying signs via the cracks and leaks on several reactors ...

Dame Lauvergeon on France2 declares "Japan is not going through a nuclear catastrophe" ...

It is not at its first absurdity besides !!!!

@+
0 x
Image
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79008
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10940




by Christophe » 28/04/11, 11:41

I haven't had time to look at the doc yet, but:

Addrelyn wrote:80 tonnes of fissile material, more than the Hiroshima bomb ...
Except it's not just U235.
The mustachioed green, a great character!

Short


Pfff short as you say ... necessarily 80 T is more the capacity of the bomber of the time did not exceed 15 Tons ... all inclusive ...

So on that we agree ... it's even more than 1000 times more since there was only 64 kg of Uranium in Hiroshima:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

The weapon was developed during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project, and derived its explosive power from enriched uranium. With a length of 3 m and a diameter of 71 cm, it had a mass of 4 kg. It contained just over 000 kg of uranium 64, of which 235 g went into fission.


So we would have 700 g = 16 kT?

But uh 700 g on 64 kg ca makes only 1% of fissile material right?

So what is the coefficient between TNT equivalent and mass of uranium or H2?

For example if the http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba had been a fission bomb how much would it have weighed?
0 x
Addrelyn
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 166
Registration: 16/07/10, 11:28




by Addrelyn » 28/04/11, 11:46

At the same time, the deep debility does not allow to understand basic technical explanations.

The report starts from the principle that nuclear power is bad, and comes to say that nuclear power is bad.
: Shock:

They show tons of low activity waste and say it is dangerous ... It is potentially dangerous because it has passed into the nuclear zone, but in reality, it is 0 radioactivity.
Truly disgusting waste does not take up space, it represents a poor little shed. Small shed that can be left as it is for decades to find a good solution.
Nuclear is the only energy that stores its waste. CO2 is also dangerous, but we let it escape into the atmosphere without knowing what it will do in 100, 1000 years.

The insane is long, it's normal, we have time and when time passes, the radioactivity decreases ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79008
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10940




by Christophe » 28/04/11, 12:00

Remundo wrote:While the former use it to drown the fish and compromise the future, saying huge things ...

"everything is under control", "waste is under control" "oh yes, but that will not happen with our reactor design"


Hold Raymond, you have divinatory talents?

(compared to Addrelyn's last response)

: Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 28/04/11, 12:13

But it is that he would be insulting towards Imotep the bugger! : Mrgreen: it deserves the "fridge", no ... ;-)

Addrelyn wrote:At the same time, the deep debility does not allow to understand basic technical explanations.

Truly disgusting waste does not take up space, it represents a poor little shed. Small shed that can be left as it is for decades to find a good solution.


Ha, ha, ha!

La "Total hangar area" given by the IAEA (moderate insult !!) at the time scale of radionuclides (from 1 to 1000 years) would be between ~ 100 and 1 km000 (> 000 Ci / km2)
Needless to say, a 100km radius ... it's not a small shed ... and it's calculated with a ladle ... because radioactivity doesn't choose a homogeneous zone! This is purely one more nonsense from the IAEA (but still, it's worth a look at the graph :)

Image

Source: IAEA 'friends': "Chernobyl reactor accident. Total contaminated area »

The degree of ...
Addrelyn wrote:"Deep debility"

... at home and pit bull, is unfortunately difficult to measure! (if we did not hesitate between lying, bad faith and unconsciousness? Even the three ^^)
0 x
Leo Maximus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2183
Registration: 07/11/06, 13:18
x 124




by Leo Maximus » 28/04/11, 14:31

Christophe wrote:So we would have 700 g = 16 kT?
But uh 700 g on 64 kg ca makes only 1% of fissile material right?

For Hiroshima, Georges Charpak does the math in his book "From Chernobyl to Chernobyls" and that gives 0,8 kg of fission products.

Comparatively, a nuclear reactor produces about 1 kg of fission products per day per thermal megawatt, so a PWR from us is 4 to 5 times more in fission products each day than the Hiroshima bomb in one go.

On the subject of buried waste, when the short-lived radio-elements have disappeared, there will remain uranium and above all ... plutonium : Lol: This is what is super interesting for future generations, the salt mines will become plutonium mines. (source Georges Charpak).

:D
0 x
Alain G
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3044
Registration: 03/10/08, 04:24
x 3




by Alain G » 28/04/11, 17:44

Addrelyn wrote:At the same time, the deep debility does not allow to understand basic technical explanations.

The report starts from the principle that nuclear power is bad, and comes to say that nuclear power is bad.
: Shock:

They show tons of low activity waste and say it is dangerous ... It is potentially dangerous because it has passed into the nuclear zone, but in reality, it is 0 radioactivity.
Truly disgusting waste does not take up space, it represents a poor little shed. Small shed that can be left as it is for decades to find a good solution.
Nuclear is the only energy that stores its waste. CO2 is also dangerous, but we let it escape into the atmosphere without knowing what it will do in 100, 1000 years.

The insane is long, it's normal, we have time and when time passes, the radioactivity decreases ...


Pffff!

It is obvious that you work for the sector and that you come here to appease the risks !!!!!!!!!

Here's what a REAL scientist thinks:

"We need to react" - Hubert Reeves


“We have to think of energy for tomorrow, for a few decades. We know that the oil is running out and I am not for nuclear. You have to be ready to have alternative energy. The best choice are wind turbines and photovoltaics [solar energy]. This is where all the efforts should be concentrated. ”




Statement by Hubert Reeves,
astrophysicist, president of the Roc League.

In 2007, the President of the Republic refused to include nuclear energy in the Grenelle environment debates. The association which I preside, the Roc League, concerned with the preservation of biodiversity has accepted this prerequisite because, on the one hand energy problems are not the only problems which arise, and on the other hand a later debate was promised to associations then more involved in this theme.

Continuing its evolution, our association defends the living manhandled in many human activities. Humans have everything to gain by defending the biodiversity of which they are part and depend. We have produced a manifesto in which the two words Humanity and Biodiversity are constantly associated. The drama of Fukushima shows that the two words Humanity and Energy are also inseparable, especially in high-tech societies whose energy needs are immense, and will remain so even by reducing the sometimes intense and costly waste.

Energy enables the development of human societies. But this medal has its downside, for example: electricity eliminates the alternation of day and night in a riot of lighting harmful to humans and many species ...

Faced with their misfortune, the Japanese are exemplary in composure, they command our respect. The current urgency, for us, is to question us on the aids to bring them to alleviate their sufferings.

After will come the time to learn from this episode, the debate on energy choices. All energy sources have serious drawbacks: coal, oil, hydro, and now shale gas. Without forgetting nuclear energy whose enormous power was revealed through the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and whose waste has a millennial life. More than the others, it scares. This fear had largely subsided. Current events wake her up and make two camps stand against each other.

To overcome the episode of internal conflict, public opinion must be informed about the advantages and risks of each of the available energy sources. And the best anticipations can be ridiculous in the face of the unpredictable. In France, the broad debate promised in 2007 should be on the agenda. We cannot predict the outcome.

But radioactive clouds have no borders. Debates are necessary in all countries that own power plants or plan to build them. Like civil aviation, the universal application of the conclusions of these debates is the only realistic solution.


http://www.hubertreeves.info/


And his audio response much more credible than your responses my dear Addrelin !: : Evil:

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/visuel/20 ... _3244.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-r_5wO3iVE
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.
Criticism is good if added to some compliments.
Alain
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79008
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10940




by Christophe » 28/04/11, 20:31

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 190 guests