Returns Scroll Stop Automatic mode

Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal, nuclear (fission and fusion)Why dismantle nuclear power plants?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear, PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER, thermal, cogeneration, trigeneration. Peakoil, depletion, economics, geopolitical technologies and strategies.
User avatar
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 47028
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 409
Contact :

Why dismantle nuclear power plants?

Unread Messageby Christophe » 30/04/11, 20:59

Uh I can tell an enormity to some but when you see the problems already posed by nuclear decommissioning in progress (initial costs increased by approximately 50), I wonder what is the point of dispersal of radioactive materials and put "dismantlers" endangered when we could leave the big locally and "secure" website on non?

When I say "secure" it is for the environment and for people / animals ...

Hey, we never really dismantled the Atlantic Wall ...
0 x
Was this forum helpful or advisable? Help him too so he can continue to do it! Articles, analyzes and downloads on the editorial part of the site, publish your own! Get out (part of) your savings from the banking system, buy crypto-currencies!

Addrelyn
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 166
Registration: 16/07/10, 11:28

Unread Messageby Addrelyn » 30/04/11, 21:12

I wonder what is the point of dispersal of radioactive materials


Do you know what is in a central radioactive?
Do you know how matter becomes radioactive?
Do you know what radioactive elements out of a plant?

Do you want to know?

Uh I can tell an enormity to some but when you see the problems already posed by nuclear decommissioning in progress (initial costs increased by approximately 50)


Countries have lots of different ways.
In England, they decided to leave the central 120 years before starting to dismantle.
In France it is expected 30 years I think.
0 x
User avatar
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 47028
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 409
Contact :

Unread Messageby Christophe » 30/04/11, 21:51

Roh calm ... yes I want to know!

When I said materials, I thought of all pipes and metallic elements of the primary (heart, steam generator ...) and any other element (concrete, doors ...) that are highly contaminated.

What's the point of dismantling? If it is for the renfuir elsewhere so let them rot and no secure place (including rain penetration).

I have no idea what they become after dismantling ... dillués in a blast furnace in China?

Ah well I have not entirely wrong if england plans to do anything during 120 years, ca joins the idea of ​​it. They provide a secure site over this period?

But who says the company that manages ca still exist in 120 years?
0 x
Was this forum helpful or advisable? Help him too so he can continue to do it! Articles, analyzes and downloads on the editorial part of the site, publish your own! Get out (part of) your savings from the banking system, buy crypto-currencies!
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 13254
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 411

Unread Messageby Flytox » 30/04/11, 22:04

Addrelyn wrote:Countries have lots of different ways.
In England, they decided to leave the central 120 years before starting to dismantle.
In France it is expected 30 years I think.


The principle is simple, first "on" puts full excavation, now And then come what may, there will always be enough taxpayers to get fucked in teething and huge costs associated with decommissioning costs .... who have obviously never been anticipated (Forbidden word in this technology).
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
netshaman
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 532
Registration: 15/11/08, 12:57
x 1

Unread Messageby netshaman » 30/04/11, 22:06

While covering a huge sarcophagus ...
Oh, no that's already done in Chernobyl, I am bete!
Them the least have chosen the path of common sense in that decision.
It's not like in Africa or cheerfully dispersing the metals contaminated or remelted and the pans and other cookware has the use of the African housewife!
Material from the mines of our dear Areva.

Little quote: "The nuclear ca does not relieve of CO2" => and the cost of transporting raw materials of Africa up in France, is whey?
"The nuclear is the renewable energy and clean *" => Go tell ca is the housewife like!


* Except when it does there is more uranium ore.

You have all recognized that said AC does not it?
: Mrgreen:
0 x

User avatar
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 47028
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 409
Contact :

Unread Messageby Christophe » 30/04/11, 22:15

Flytox wrote:Costs that have obviously never been anticipated (Forbidden word in this technology).


If just from the last further investigation, the new wind projects must provision their dismantling on blocked account for 20 years!

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

The time to plant a wind rose from 3 8 in years!

It is a gift to EdF nothing else ...

And in pipolitiques speech ... it's the opposite ...
0 x
Was this forum helpful or advisable? Help him too so he can continue to do it! Articles, analyzes and downloads on the editorial part of the site, publish your own! Get out (part of) your savings from the banking system, buy crypto-currencies!
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 8207
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 92
Contact :

Unread Messageby Remundo » 30/04/11, 22:25

the development of renewable energy in France is particularly hampered by legal and administrative provisions for masked so powerful interests.

Wind, solar and small hydro are in the crosshairs long.

Only biomass combustion resistant as it is quite difficult to ban burning a log ...
0 x
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 8207
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 92
Contact :

Re: Why dismantle nuclear power plants?

Unread Messageby Remundo » 30/04/11, 22:31

Christophe wrote:Uh I can tell an enormity to some but when you see the problems already posed by nuclear decommissioning in progress (initial costs increased by approximately 50), I wonder what is the point of dispersal of radioactive materials and put "dismantlers" endangered when we could leave the big locally and "secure" website on non?

When I say "secure" it is for the environment and for people / animals ...

Hey, we never really dismantled the Atlantic Wall ...

I personally think that all nuclear plants will become safe havens locations with strict access regulated and it is what is "less worse" to do.

because in reality, nobody in the world knows dismantle a nuclear plant itself since it is almost impossible.

And frankly, it's an expenditure of energy (and money) extra because you have reburial of all waste is cast in concrete, is disposed in the - future - geological disposal (who also did not dig any only) ... not to mention the spread by dust and exposure to workers for not much useful ...

Anyway ... a die to forget as quickly as possible ... finish to use existing plants as transitional, and resolutely and now let's move on ...
0 x
ImageImageImage
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5545
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 209

Unread Messageby sen-no-sen » 30/04/11, 22:53

The court of accounts provided for the cost of dismantling the French nuclear fleet would be about 66 billion.
EDF has that provision 6 billion, so do not look for the reason the cost of the inevitable but gradual increase of electricity ...
As for the true cost of dismantling, no economists, nor any serious engineers would not predict precisely, knowing that the bill may exceed blithely 100 billion euros!
0 x
"Genius sometimes consists of knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11085
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 64

Unread Messageby Obamot » 01/05/11, 00:46

It is not possible to give a fixed amount! Everything depends on the circumstances, the level of irradiation, the type of contamination and depth ... and especially the revaluation of safety standards for low irradiation dose, which will multiply the cost by x20 or x100. ..in 120 years because health standards have changed! And "dismantlers" will need to traviller less time on the sites, it will therefore multiply, making the "rare" on the labor market, and it will therefore pay a lot more. Prices exploserons, because the methods of dismantling change from current tolerances!

The landfill also will be problematic (groundwater table, etc.). Probably in just 20 years, the "moyennemet radioctifs" waste will be treated identically as "highly radioactive waste".

We must remember that the coffins of the liquidators were highly contaminated to the point that they were buried in welded metal modules ... so they do not contaminate the environment in turn ... It makes you think not ? You can imagine what it will be assessing the dangerousness of "waste" when the standards will not be falsified ...

Addrelyn, "grilled Commercial Attaché, nuclear industry," wrote:
I wonder what is the point of dispersal of radioactive materials


Do you know what is in a central radioactive?
Do you know how matter becomes radioactive?
Do you know what radioactive elements out of a plant?

Do you want to know?


Are you going to stop trying to infantilize us...

All what the henchmen of nuclear power is assumed. Enough 's enough of these apprentice sorcerers and their code of silence and manipulation. Of course all this are not new, "it's in human nature ...." That's why we need to get out of this m ... man is not wise enough, he reached the Peter principle with the nuke ...

Addrelyn, "grilled Commercial Attaché, nuclear industry," wrote:Countries have lots of different ways.


What nerve! ... Plus dismantle it's cheap! In a manner that does not change ... Areva to Fukushima - believe the industry would spread the word - from one end to the other of the planet they call the "Slaves of nuclear" which are temporary agency will try (to better forget) which is handy as those engaged by temporary work agencies are not included in the statistics of infected people as regular employees of nuclear sites .. A beautiful scandal!. "These are the liquidators of modern times," those they liquidate all, it's themselves ... For abuse of weakness recruiters!

Addrelyn, "grilled Commercial Attaché, nuclear industry," wrote:In England, they decided to leave the central 120 years before starting to dismantle.

Super, such as those just born at the moment, are not even aware of and will be gone before 120 years ... which is handy ... And in this remote period, it will be too late to bring the people justice.

The nuke the charade continues, but I look forward to reading the next absurdities of the "grilled commercial attache 'of the nuclear industry" and her "agent", as he made us understand that they have so many "higher" interests to defend in this industry ...
0 x


 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal, nuclear (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and guest 1

Other pages that will certainly interest you: