Dismantling of nuclear installations: who pays?

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 ...
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11

Dismantling of nuclear installations: who pays?




by jonule » 15/10/08, 11:04

Dismantling of nuclear installations
International conference in Avignon (28 sept-2 oct)
The "Quitting nuclear power" network denounces the
sorcerer apprentices of the nuclear industry


The representatives of most major nuclear companies, French and foreign, have met in Avignon from 28 September to 2 October to discuss the crucial issue of the dismantling of nuclear facilities. (cf. https://www.sfen.fr/index.php/plain_sit ... challenges )

On this occasion, the “Sortir du nuclear” Network reminds us that it is before considering building nuclear installations that we should have thought about it: the promoters of the atom would then certainly have realized that the question of dismantling, and that of directly linked (*) to the management of radioactive waste, are insoluble and cause serious disappointments for current and future generations.

The dismantling process of the Brennilis nuclear reactor (Finistère) perfectly illustrates the question:

- to date, the cost of dismantling is 20 times greater than the one announced at the beginning;
- the dismantling process is currently stopped by decision of the Council of State, itself seized for this purpose by the Network "Sortir du nuclear" which has revealed serious irregularities both at the administrative level (in particular the non- information of the population) that concerning the dismantling site (an inspection report from the Nuclear Safety Authority, dated June 20, 2007, points to the numerous infringements);

Another illustrative example is the British nuclear situation:
- the decommissioning bill has been reevaluated several times, from 48 billion pounds in 2002, to 56 in 2004, to now reach the staggering amount of 70,2 billion pounds (104 billion euros). In the meantime worse ...
- it was recognized during the recent purchase of British energy by EDF that it would be the public money that would finance this dismantling.

It is clear that companies make profits by selling nuclear electricity, then leave the decommissioning bill to the state, and leave to future generations of radioactive waste that will last for millions of years. These data are to be compared with those of renewable energies which, among other qualities, do not pose a problem of dismantling and do not produce radioactive waste.

The Network "Sortir du nuclear", which calls for a national debate on the question of dismantling, denounces the cynicism of the participants in the International Colloquium of Avignon, who all support the construction of new nuclear installations and then have good luck claiming that it "must" look into the problem of dismantling.


(*) The dismantling of a nuclear installation results in the creation of very large quantities of radioactive waste.


which will be buried in our soil as recalled in recent articles. everyone is free to express themselves in relation to the management of our soils in this industry ...
0 x
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 12/11/08, 15:31

Télérama - 8 Week at 14 November 2008
Brennilis, the power station that did not want to go out.
Documentary by Brigitte Chevet (France, 2008). 55 mn. Unpublished.

The Brennilis experimental reactor in Brittany was built in the 60 years. The population was informed only by a meager propaganda. Twenty years later, in 1986, we stop this inefficient plant that is leaking everywhere. The heavy water industry is dead but the same elected officials who campaigned for the maintenance of the site will soon be campaigning for its dismantling. EDF accepts and works begin in the 90 years to stop in the early 2000: attacking the reactor seems too dangerous. EDF however takes the risk two years later ... until the ecologists manage to stop the construction site.

Brigitte Chevet followed these adventures for years. The first merit of his documentary is to give an exhaustive view of the history of the site, using images and rich, rare and varied testimonies. The record is disastrous. The Brennilis shipyard, which was to be the showcase of EDF's decommissioning know-how, is accumulating additional costs, rejects and risks, which does not bode well for the future of aging plants. The inconsistency of the designers and operators of the nuclear industry appears in all its nightmarish splendor. Even if Brennilis is not Chernobyl, says Brigitte Chevet. Because she did not make a militant film but a citizen film, which questions the state of our democracy. An optimistic film, at the end of the day: of public meetings in remonstrance of the Nuclear Safety Authority, of communication operations in altercations between ecologists and workers, it shows the emergence of a very lively debate on a previously taboo subject .


so, for the moment, NO nuclear power plant has been dismantled, and the first to be dismantled can not be dismantled?
what will they do with it? a pretext for storing waste?

you really have to expect everything with an industry that promises 40 years in advance "don't worry afterwards we take everything away and it costs the taxpayer very little" ... yet another proof that this lobby has lied and continues to do so. make.

And again, it's just a simple observation.
0 x
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 02/11/09, 09:59

Hello everyone.

responsible ecological footprint & dismantling of nuclear installations?

the dismantling being part of the lobby speech, let's look at the dismantling supported ...


has it already occurred?

no. we cannot yet judge the "quality" of this technology, as well as its footprint.

Brennilis will be first. there is a petition to launch a national public debate on the dismantling of these installations, you will find it here:

"
While the public inquiry concerning the decommissioning of the Brennilis nuclear power plant is taking place from 27 October to 27 November 2009 (1), associations (2) members of the CLI (Local Information Commission) at the nuclear installation base of the Monts d'Arrée, located in the town of Brennilis, launch a petition to request a national public debate on the dismantling.

The text of the petition is below. Thank you for distributing it and returning it before the 25 November 2009 to the nuclear exit Cornouaille - 53 dead end of the Odet - 29000 QUIMPER

the text of the petition online
http://www.cyberacteurs.org/petitions/p ... .php?id=43

The text of the petition in pdf
http://www.cyberacteurs.org/pdf/demantel.pdf

Thank you for taking part in a request for a national public debate on the first dismantling of a nuclear power plant in France
"
0 x
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 02/11/09, 10:03

But what is going on at Cadarache?


yes it is an integral part of the disse: management from start to finish, what have they done so far with the old plants?

to better hide the problem to the public, by state ethics, the operator (the industrialist therefore) wants to push the machines initially planned to work 20 years, to 40 years.

but this poses serious problems as well as many surprises of this park (and therefore non-renewable):

read the article from Provence:
https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... y9A3jK.pdf

we note the intervention of the specialist Jean Michel Jarre .......

to you the studios
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 02/11/09, 11:02

Too bad the journalist does not do his job to the end, there are simpler things than nuke .... and to better understand the issues, he allows himself to give a false lexicon for "Isotope":

Image

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

In nuclear physics and chemistry, two atoms are said to be isotopic if they have the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom is designated by the atomic number Z. Two isotopes have the same Z. What distinguishes two isotopes is that they have a different mass A number. The mass number of an atom is the number of nucleons contained in the nucleus of that atom. The difference in mass number is therefore due to a difference in the number of N neutrons.

In simpler words, they are atoms that are differentiated only by their number of neutrons, except for cases of ionization (where we also have different numbers of electrons).


Between those who have everything to hide and / or all money to gain in the greatest opacity, when the relevant information struggles to spread out in broad daylight ..... I feel bad for our "democracy". Maybe we should talk about "NukoKratie" .... : Evil: : Mrgreen:
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 02/11/09, 13:11

Two remarks:

1) When I see the number of CAP fans, I think that the question does not concern much!

2) When I see .... what I see and the title of this thread, I tell myself that many still have not realized that EDF has been privatized. This will therefore be a burden for the electricity producer, owner of the facilities, ie EdF. This seems obvious to me. So, since EdF does not print bank notes to what I know, it will be for EdF's clients ... And here we are on the discussion we had when EdF's CEO talked about 20% increase in the 3 years ... and that many have asked naivemùe, ntquelle fly had stung! Maybe he had just done an Excel chart with some extrapolations of charges ????
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 02/11/09, 14:06

Did67 wrote:1) When I see the number of CAP fans, I think that the question does not concern much!


Well no ... but the question should be asked to ADEME ... which has "always" supported aero, aqua and geothermal energy ...
0 x
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 04/11/09, 10:59

Did67 wrote:since EdF does not print banknotes as far as I know, it will be for EdF customers ... And here we go on the discussion we had when EdF's CEO talked about 20% of increase in the 3 years ... and that many have wondered naïvemùe, ntquelle fly had stung! Maybe he had just done an Excel chart with some extrapolations of charges ????

I take myself 138,5% increase from EDF who spoke about 2%, but it was an average:
they have passed since 1er August, the price of the 3kW meter at the same price as the 6kW counter, ie 56 € rather than 21 €!

an incentive to save energy?

shameful and scandalous. industrial and stock market.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 04/11/09, 11:30

jonule wrote:an incentive to save energy?

shameful and scandalous. industrial and stock market.


You should know what you want ... the worst thing nuclear security level would be a sale price flush paquerette ... I say not all the benefits go in the security obviously not but there is more chance of having money in security when there is big money than when there is none!

The Chernobyl accident is not so far removed from the "bankruptcy" of communism by chance!
0 x
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 04/11/09, 15:18

it might be a way of seeing things, yes, but I remain convinced that even if there are profits on the sale of money to the public, it will either be distributed to shareholders or diverted;

An example: the nuclear waste swung in the open sea by the mafia who managed the waste in Italy (confession of a repentant): this mafia pocketed the money from the treatment in the pocket and made disappear the waste.

everything should be verifiable but everything is opaque, secret law defense they do what they want.



after yes nuclear power is not expensive enough I fully agree, but if it is more expensive it must be justified all the same!

this is only to put in the pockets of the shareholders, everyone knows that EDF is looking for money they even borrowed from the French, the poor if they knew what will happen ...
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 290 guests