Gen II reactors are the reactors design which has been built between the 70's up to 2000, it has nothing to do with SMRs.
My point was that there's no reason to insist on a ridiculously complex reactor design such as the EPR (which is a Gen III reactor), and that we can simply go back to the proven designs of the second generation for two or three decades, until we finish developing the fourth generation, which has real arguments.
cela a été démontré par certaines études, une voiture pollue plus à 30 qu’à 50
Première chose : je suis curieux de les voir, ces études, si tu les as sous la main. Parce que même si on prend en compte l'influence du régime moteur sur la consommation d'un moteur, le principe physique de base c'est quand même que la majorité de la consommation énergétique d'un véhicule donné est due à la résistance au roulement et à la force aérodynamique, qui dépendent de la vitesse.
Deuxième chose : admettons qu'une voiture pollue plus à 30 qu'à 50, dans tous les cas, le fait de réduire la vitesse sur des axes rend la voiture moins attrayante, ce qui entraîne une évaporation nette du trafic. Et des voitures en moins sur les routes c'est une baisse forte et nette de la pollution, en plus de tous les autres bienfaits induits.
Dans ma ville les transports sont totalement saturés en heure de pointe, le réseau cyclable loin d’être optimal… Je ne vois donc pas d’intérêt à emmerder les gens qui dépendent de leur voiture pour des raisons très valables avec des zones 30 dans des boulevards à trois bandes.
« 42% des personnes dont le lieu d’emploi est situé à moins d’un kilomètre de chez eux prennent le plus souvent leur voiture pour s’y rendre. Presque autant circulent à pied, et les autres à vélo ou en transports publics.
Lorsque la distance est comprise entre 1 et 2 km, la voiture convainc 56% des personnes.
Entre 2 et 3 km, 63%, etc.
Dans l’ensemble, 60% des déplacements domicile-travail de moins de 5 km se font en voiture.
(source)
Pour ma part, je ne pense pas que 56% des automobilistes ont des raisons très valables de prendre la voiture pour faire 3km, bien au contraire, je pense qu'on est sur un vrai problème d'utilisation abusive de la voiture qui a des conséquences néfastes conséquentes entre autre sur l'environnement, l'urbanisme, l'économie et la santé publique, ce qui justifie de prendre des mesures contraignantes.
Ensuite, je trouve curieux que tu pointes du doigt les infrastructures cyclables et de transports en communs insuffisantes, mais que tu ne fasses pas le lien avec les boulevards à trois bandes. Dans ton exemple, tu retires rien qu'une ou deux bandes, et tu peux faire une piste cyclable dans les deux sens, ou une voie bus, ou un tram si t'as le budget.
C'est un raisonnement qui peut s'appliquer à l'échelle de villes entières : en 2016, la moitié de Paris était accaparé par les automobilistes, et on parle là d'une ville qui était déjà fortement piétonnisée, seulement 13% des transports se faisant en voiture.
On balance un fric colossal et on offre une quantité d'espace monstrueuse pour les automobilistes, c'est juste pas possible de développer des alternatives sans aller grignoter chez eux. Le passage d'axes à 30km/h est un moyen de reprendre un peu de cet espace et de le partager, avec les cyclistes qui risquent moins leur vie, avec les piétons et surtout avec ceux qui habitent dans le coin.
Si si : du calme, moins de pollution, et moins de gens tentés de prendre la voiture au lieu des alternatives
but we certainly have technology that does the job.
Absolutely not if we're talking about nation-wide energy storage. The world's largest STEP, Hongrin-Leman, Switzerland, which occupies a considerable amount of space, has only a capacity of 100 GWh, which represents less than 1h15 of the winter night consumption of a country like France which consumes 70 GW at that time.
It would take 10 to sustain one night without wind, as you can have several each year. Then we would have to fill them entirely in one day for the next night which is impossible.
And that's just for the problem of capacity, such a STEP generates less than 500MW of power, so it would actually take 140 STEPs of that size to provide enough power.
And we're talking about today, where most cars and heating are still fossil-fueled and need to be replaced by electric.
Unless you find a technology that is now a miracle, running a country on solar and wind without hydro-electricity or nuclear is science fiction.
Ils mentionnent Mes Meilleurs Menus dans l’article, c'est un service gratuit qui consiste à l'envoi d’un mail hebdomadaire avec des menus et la liste de courses pour la semaine, à voir ce que ça donne
Merci !
L’écologie c’est pas binaire, c’est un spectre. Sinon, dans l’absolu, aucune activité humaine serait écologique.
En l’occurrence, oui, développer des alternatives moins polluantes aux voitures et aux avions c’est un progrès écologique
None of this stuff exists and there is no timeline as when it might be made into reality. Just another pipe dream.
Super-Phénix was a fully-working prototype cancelled by anti-nuclears. It produced and pushed 3TWh in the French national electricity network back in 1996 before being shut down. And there are built and working EPR in the world right, you're just denying reality at this point.
So how are you going to separate out the technetium? Just because something is doable in a lab, doesn't mean it's doable on an industrial scale.
Technetium is literally extracted from nuclear waste to be used in numerous medical field, such as marking cancerous cells in bodies. You're throwing random terms trying to find some point here.
No they haven't. Not at all. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
See? Another anti-nuclear shill that denies the reality. Most geologists and nuclear scientists have agreed on a solution for years : they're just so little to bury, it's so easy to contain, just bury it in an inert ground and it will not move for millions of years.
We're literally finding millions-years old unprotected fossils of dinosaurs that are almost intact. Nuclear waste will be sealed in containers which are made for this.
We're finding gigantic pools of gas and liquid that stayed in the same place for millions of years. Nuclear waste will be either solid or liquid, so it is way easier to contain than gas, and sealed in containers.
Even if the containers break for some reason, the solid waste will just no move, and radiation can be stopped by a few centimeters of water. The liquid waste would not move either, but let's say it moves for some magical reason, then there is only one way it would move : down. There is gravity and pressure, you know.
Yeah yeah yeah, same old bullshit. The reality is that this stuff just doesn't work economically.
130 billions of euros for 60 years of french nuclear, everything included. EDF net profit is averaging billions every year. 10 billions of euros in the first semester of 2023 alone. And that's with ARENH, which forces EDF to sell at loss 25% of its nuclear electricity to its competitors.
Nuclear can be economical and profitable, when you don't perpetually throw wrenches in the works.
This cube contains 98% of the radioactivity in all French nuclear waste, produced over 60 years.
Stop pretending it's some kind of unsolvable problem, nuclear engineers have solved it decades ago, it's just anti-nuclear folks that oppose all solutions provided.
And yet, EDF has built the current french nuclear reactor fleet without any subsidies, and made billions of euros of net profit every year for decades, excepted in 2022. It is feasible. Current failures are not inherently tied to the nuclear technology. It's political.
You cannot even put a price tag on nuclear storage because it's never been done before
Plain false. Cigéo will work for 100 years for about 25 billions of euros. That's dirt cheap. And you now why it's dirt cheap? Because the entire high level radioactive waste produced by a country like France for 60 years fit in a 16 meters wide cube. And most of it will be re-used in future EPRs.
If you look at the EPRs, well, we can thank the Germans who co-developed the project, and pushed for excessive requirements making the design complex, such as the double containment and the system to make maintenance possible without shutting down the reactor. Requirements that the French didn't need or want, but which were accepted as a concession to keep the Germans in the project, before they slammed the door anyway.
Even Okiluoto and Hinkley Point can be regarded as serial entries, so different are they from Flamanville, and so much work had to be done to simplify them.
Let's scrap the EPR design, go back to Gen IIs for now, since we know they're reliable, safe, cheap and easy to build, and move straight on to Gen IV when it's ready.
You still have nuclear power plants, you don't even have to start from scratch. But yes, NIMBYS are a significant problem, but renewables are already facing this problem too, and it's going to intensify greatly with the amount of space it takes to build wind turbines, solar panels, and the colossal amount of storage it takes to make them viable without fossil, hydro or nuclear power.
I'm talking about Gen II reactors like the 56 that make up France's nuclear power fleet, which are tried and tested, safe, inexpensive, efficient, and have enabled France to decarbonize almost all its electricity in two decades. I'm not into technosolutionism, I'm into empiricism.
Okay, so the 4 Blayais reactors, totalling 3.64GWe (equivalent to almost 11GW of wind power, but without the need for storage or redundancy) were connected to the grid 6.5 to 8.5 years after the first public survey, made before the project was started.
I'm not claiming that every reactor project will be built so quickly, but we have to stop pretending that nuclear power is inherently slow to build. It's the lack of political will that makes nuclear power slow to build, and it's not an unsolvable problem.